Emanuel Tov-Textual Criticism of The Hebrew Bible (3rd Ed)

TEXTUAL CRITICISM
OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND EXPANDED
EMANUEL TOY
Fortress Press
Minneapolis
For Lika, companion, friend, and source of inspiration
4QCanta (Cant 4:1)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

Third Edition, Revised and Expanded
Copyright 2012 Fortress Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief
quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be
reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the
publisher. Visit www.augsburgfortress.org/ copyrights/ or write to
Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440.
Cover image: The large Isaiah Scroll (lQisa), cols. IV-VII Jim
Hollander I epa I Corbis
Cover design: Ivy Palmer Skrade
Book design: Janice Karnis
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

ISBN 978-0-8006-9664-1
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
American National Standard for Information Sciences- Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI 2329.48-1984.
Manufactured in the U.S.A.
15 14 13 12 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10
CONTENTS
List of Tables
xiii
List of Plates
xv
Preface
Abbreviations and Sources
xvii
XIX
Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials
xxv
Bibliographical Abbreviations
xxix
System of Transliteration
!vi
Brief Didactic Guide
!vii
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Need for Textual Criticism of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture
1. Differences among the Many Textual Witnesses

a. Sequence of Books
b. Chapter Division
c. Layout of the Text
d. Verse Division
e. Single Letters and Words
f. Vocalization and Accentuation
g. Notes of the Masorah
h. Different Editions Based on the Same Manuscript
j. Differences Due to Printing Errors
2. Mistakes, Corrections, and Changes in the Texts, Including m
3. m Does Not Reflect the "Original Text" of the Biblical Books
4. Differences between Inner-Biblical Parallel Texts in m
B. A Modem Approach to Textual Criticism
c. Beginnings of Critical Inquiry into the Scripture Text
D. Text, Canon, and Sacred Status
E. Subjectivity of This Book
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
9
11
12
17
19
20
22
A.
Chapter 2: Textual Witnesses
23
I. Hebrew Witnesses
23
24
26
26
27
36
A.
Proto-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (m-Group)

1. The Consonantal Framework: Prato-Masoretic Texts and m
a. Background
b. Development of the Consonantal Text
c. Origin
Contents
VI
d. Evidence
e. Significance of the Differences between Medieval Manuscripts
2. Vocalization
a. Background
b. Systems of Vocalization
c. Differences between the Vocalization Systems
d. Character of the Tiberian Vocalization
3. Para-Textual Elements
a. Text Divisions: Sections, Verses, Chapters, and Parashot
b. Pisqah beem?a pasuq
c. Inverted Nunim
d. Extraordinary Points (Puncta Extraordinaria)
e. Suspended Letters (Litterae Suspensae)
f. Special Letters
g. Ketib-Qere
h. Sebirin
i. Corrections of the Scribes
j. Omission of the Scribes
k. Layout
4. Accentuation
5. Apparatus of the Masorah
a. Content
b. Masoretic Handbooks
c. Editions of the Masorah
d. Importance of the Masorah
6. Editions of m
B. Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch (w.-Group)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background
Date and Origin
Manuscripts and Editions
Nature of the Text
a. Early (Pre-Samaritan) Elements in w.
a. Editorial Changes
Small Harmonizing Alterations
y. Linguistic Corrections
8. Small Content Differences
E. Linguistic Differences
b. Samaritan Elements
a. Ideological Changes
Changes
c. Orthography
37
38
39
40
42
43
46
47
48
50
51
51
52
53
54
59
59
61
61
62
65
66
68
69
70
70
74
75
76
78
79
80
80
82
83
85
86
87
87
88
89
Contents
5. Pre-Samaritan Texts
c. The Biblical Texts Found in the Judean Desert

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Background
Evidence
Dating
Publication
Texts Written in the Qumran Scribal Practice
a. Orthographic Features
b. Morphological Features
c. Scribal Features
d. Contextual Adaptations
e. Consistency and Statistical Analysis
6. Variants in the Qumran Scrolls
7. Classification of the Scrolls According to Textual Character
8. Contribution of the Judean Desert Scrolls to Biblical Research
D. Additional Witnesses
1. Silver Rolls from Ketef Hinnom
2. The Nash Papyrus
3. Tefillin and Mezuzot from the Judean Desert
4. The Severus Scroll and R. Meir's Torah
5. Non-Biblical Sources: Quotations and "Rewritten Scripture" Texts
6. Texts That Have Been Lost
II. The Ancient Translations
A. Use of the Ancient Translations in Textual Criticism
1. Background
2. Exegesis
a. Linguistic Exegesis
b. Contextual Exegesis
c. Theological Exegesis
d. Midrashic Tendencies
3. Representation of Hebrew Constructions in the Translation
4. Inner-Translational Phenomena
5. Reconstruction of the Hebrew Source of the Translations
B.Evidence
1.
a. Name and Nature
b. Scope
c. Sequence of the Books
d. Original Form
Origin, and Date
e. Evidence
a. Direct Witnesses
vii
90
93
94
95
98
99
100
101
102
103
103
104
105
107
110
111
111
111
112
112
114
115
115
115
115
117
118
119
120
122
122
122
122
127
127
128
129
129
131
132
132
Contents
Vlll
Indirect Witnesses: Daughter Translations

f. Editions
g. Auxiliary Tools
and Its Text-Critical Value
h. Hebrew Source
2. Revisions of the Septuagint
a. Background
b. Emergence of the Revisions
c. Nature of the Revisions
d. Pre-Hexaplaric Revisions
a. Kaige-Theodotion
e. Hexapla
f. Post-Hexaplaric Revisions: Lucian
3. Targumim (<!: 0 , ([Ps-J, ([F, ([N, ([J)
143
144
145
146
147
a. Targumim to the Torah

a. Targum Onqelos
Targumim
b. Targum to the Prophets
c. Targumim to the Hagiographa
4. Peshitta (S)
5. Vulgate (D)
6. Arabic Translation of Saadia
149
149
149
150
150
150
152
154
y. Symmach us
Chapter 3: History of the Biblical Text

Relation between the Texts
1. Relation between the Texts in Research until 1947
2. Relation between the Texts in Research since 1947
3. A New Approach
4. Central Position of m in Tradition and Research
B. Shape of the Biblical Text in Early Periods
1. Necessity to Accept a View on the Original Text
2. Two Models
c. Development of the Biblical Text
1. Textual Theories
2. The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture
3. A New Description
A.
Chapter 4: Copying and Transmitting the Biblical Text

A.
B.
133
134
135
135
141
141
141
141
142
142
Background and Chronological Framework

Copying the Biblical Text
1. Materials, Shape, and Scope
155
155
155
157
158
160
161
161
163
169
169
174
180
191
191
192
192
Contents
2. Writing Practices
a. Word Division
b. Final and Non-final Letters
c. Text Divisions
d. Stichographic Layout
e. Correction of Errors
f. Scribal Markings
g. Writing of Divine Names
h. Breaking up of Words
3. Scripts
a. Background
b. Change of Script
4. Orthography (Spelling)
a. Background
b. Different Orthographic Practices in the Biblical Texts
c. Orthographic Practices of them-Group
a. Dating the Orthography of m on the Basis of External
Evidence
Internal Analysis of m
y. Does m Reflect a Spelling System?
8. Characterization of Individual Books in m
5. Scribal Traditions
Appendix: Tefillin and Mezuzot from the Judean Desert
c. Textual Transmission
1. Background
2. Differences Created in the Course of the Textual Transmission
a. Minuses
a. Random Omissions
Haplography
y. Homoioteleuton, Homoioarcton (Parablepsis)
b. Pluses
a. Dittography
c. Interchanges
c.i
Interchange of Similar Letters
a. Graphic Similarity
Similarity
c.ii Different Conceptions of Word Division
c.iii Orthography: Differences Involving Matres Lectionis
c.iv Orthography: Quiescent 'Aleph
c.v
Variations Involving the Use of Final Letters
ix
195
196
197
198
201
202
205
205
205
206
206
207
208
208
209
212
212
213
216
217
218
218
219
219
221
221
221
222
222
224
224
225
227
227
227
233
234
235
237
237
Contents
c.vi Vocalization (Reading)

c.vii Complex Variants
c.viii Abbreviations?
d. Sequence Differences
e. Scribal Interpretations
3. Readings Reflecting Content Changes
a. Exegetical Changes
a. Contextual Changes
Changes
b. Linguistic-Stylistic Changes
c. Insertion of Synonymous Readings
d. Harmonizations
e. Explanatory and Exegetical Additions to the Body of the Text
f. Midrash-Like Changes and Additions
Chapter 5: Theory and Praxis of Textual Criticism

Theory of Textual Criticism
Praxis of Textual Criticism
c. Different Types of Variants
A.
B.
Chapter 6: Evaluation of Readings

Background
B. Textual Guidelines
1. External Criteria
a. Unequal Status of Textual Sources
b. Preference for m
c. Broad Attestation
d. Age of Textual Witnesses
2. Internal Criteria
a. Lectio Difficilior Praeferenda/Praevalet/Praestat
b. Lectio Brevior (Brevis) Potior
c. Assimilation to Parallel Passages (Harmonization)
d. Interpretive Modification
c. Preferable Readings
A.
Chapter 7: Textual and Literary Criticism

Background
B. Evidence
1. Two Literary Strata of Jeremiah: 4QJerb,d 113* and m+
2. Two Literary Strata of Joshua: 113* and m+
3. Two Literary Strata of Ezekiel: 113* and m+
4. Different Literary Strata in 1 Samuel: m+,l13*, and 4QSama
A.
237
237
238
239
239
240
240
241
242
256
257
258
259
261
263
263
265
267
269
269
270
271
271
272
273
274
275
275
277
279
279
281
283
283
286
286
294
299
301
Contents
5. Two Literary Editions of
and !11+
6. Different Chronological Systems in Genesis 5, 8, 11: m, w.,
7. 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kingdoms) in*
8. Sequence Differences between* and !11+
9. Different Literary Editions of 2 Kings 20 II Isaiah 38?
10. Long and Short Texts of 1 Samuel11: 4QSam 3 and !11+,
11. Two Literary Editions of Judges 6 in 4QJudg 3 and !11+, ?
12. Two Literary Editions of Deut 5 in 4QPhyl A, B, J and !11+, ?
13. Different Literary Editions of Joshua: 4QJosh 3 and !11+,
14. Different Literary Editions of Exodus 35-40: *and !11+, w.
15a.Different Literary Editions of Esther:* and !11+
15b.Different Literary Editions of Esther: A-Text and !11+
16. Different Literary Editions of
and m+
17. Ezra-Nehemiah: *and !11+
18. Scripture-Like Compositions
19. Different Literary Editions of 1-2 Chronicles in* and !11+?
and m+
20. Different Literary Editions of Numbers
21. Different Literary Editions of w. and m+,
22. Different Literary Editions of Psalm 151: and 11QPs 3
23. An Exegetical Edition of the Torah in 4QRPa-e
24. Minor Literary Differences
c. Evaluation
Chapter 8: Conjectural Emendation

Background
B. Types of Emendations
1. Contextual Emendations
2. Linguistic Emendations
a. Grammar
b. Parallels in Cognate Languages, Especially in Ugaritic
3. Emendations for Metrical Reasons
A.
xi
304
305
306
309
310
311
313
314
314
316
317
318
318
319
320
321
322
322
322
323
323
324
327
327
331
331
334
334
336
339
Chapter 9: Scholarly and Non-Scholarly Editions
341
Background
B. Scholarly Editions
1. The Biblia Hebraica Series
2. The Hebrew University Bible
3. Eclectic Editions
4. All Existing Editions
5. Alternative Types of Editions?
Appendix: Modern Translations as Bible Editions
341
347
350
357
359
365
366
367
A.
Contents
xii
Chapter 10:
Computer-Assisted Tools for Textual Criticism
Available Tools
B. Categories of Information
c. Predetermined Information
A.
Plates
377
378
380
381
383
Glossary
Index 1: Ancient Sources
425
Index 2: Authors
447
Index 3: Subjects
461
LIST OF TABLES
Chapterl
1. Gen 10:1-29 in m compared with the parallel text 1 Chr 1:4-23 m (pp. 12-13)
2. Psalm 14 in m compared with the parallel text of Psalm 53 m (p. 14)
Chapter 2
1. Differences between Land 1Qisab in Isa 48:17-49:15 (p. 31-2)

2. Types o( differences between 1Qisab and codex L (p. 32)
3. Differences between Land biblical quotations in rabbinic literature (pp. 3334)
4. Differences between medieval Masoretic manuscripts (pp. 34-5)
5. Quotations in BH from medieval MSS (according to Kennicott) (p. 38)
6. Differences in vocalization between codex L and a Babylonian-Yemenite
manuscript (p. 43)
7. Some differences between the systems of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali (p.
44)
8. Tiberian vocalizations compared with Greek and Latin transliterations (p.
46)
9. Lists in Frensdorff's edition of Okhlah we-Okhlah (p. 69)
10. Small harmonizing changes in w. (p. 83)
11. Corrections of unusual spellings in w. (p. 84)
12. Replacement of "unusual" forms with regular ones in tu (pp. 84-5)
13. Grammatical adaptation in w. (p. 85)
14. Content differences between w. and !TI+ (p. 86)
15. Morphological differences between !11 and w. (p. 87)
16. Synonymous words in !11 and w. (p. 87)
17. Differences in gutturals betwt::en m and w. (p. 89)
18. Differences in orthography between !11 and w. in Genesis 49 (pp. 89-90)
19. A pre-Samaritan text compared with !TI+ and w. (pp. 92-3)
20. Biblical scrolls found at Qumran (2009) (pp. 96-97)
20a. Biblical scrolls found at Judean Desert sites other than Qumran (p. 98)
21. Contextual changes in 1Qisaa (pp. 103-4)
22. Classified differences between mand 1Qisaa in Isa 1:1-8 (pp. 105-6)
23. Differences between !11 and 4QSama in 1 Sam 1:22-28 (pp. 106-7)
24. Select differences between m and the Severus Scroll (p. 113)
25. Variant readings reconstructed from the ancient versions (p. 125)
26. Textual and literary character of
books (pp. 138-9)
Chapter4
1. Presumed original orthography of some verses in Exodus 15 (p. 210)

2. The orthography of parallel sections in m (2 Sam 23 II 1 Chr 11) (p. 213)
xiv
Tables
3. The spellings i1i / i"1i in m (p. 214)
4. Inconsistency in m in the spelling of words occurring in the same context
(pp. 214-15)
5. Inconsistency in m in the spelling of words belonging to the same
grammatical category appearing in one context (p. 215)
6. Unusual spellings in m (p. 216)
7. Corrections of the theophoric element Ba 'al (p. 248)
8. Tendentious change in m-Deut 32:43 (pp. 249-50)
Chapter7
1. Differences between m + and the reconstructed Vorlage

in Jeremiah 27
(pp. 289-91)
2. 4QJerb,d in their relation
and m+ in Jeremiah (pp. 292-4)
3. Minuses
in Josh 20:1-6 (p. 296)
4. Two versions of the story of David and Goliath (pp. 302-303)
5. A large addition in 4QSama in 1 Samuel11 (p. 312)
6. The absence of Judg 6:7-10 from 4QJudga (p. 314)
7. 4QJosha col. I 1-4 (=Josh 8:34-35, 4:18-5:2[-7]) (p. 315)
8. Textual evaluations of literary (editorial) differences (p. 325)
ChapterS
1. Readings in the Qumran scrolls previously suggested as emendations (p.
329)
Chapter9
1. Sources of the main Scripture editions (p. 344)
2. Abbreviations and signs frequently used in BH-BHS-BHQ (pp. 353-4)
3. Eclectic editions in translation (pp. 369-71)
LIST OF PLATES
1*. One of the two minute silver rolls, II, found in Ketef Hinnom (Num 6:2426). By permission of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Israel. Drawing and
transliteration of 11. 5-12 according to G. Barkay, "The Priestly Benediction on the
Ketef Hinnom Plaques," Cathedra 52 (1989) 37-76 (Heb.).
2*. A large Exodus scroll from cave 4 at Qumran in the paleo-Hebrew script:
4QpaleoExodm, col. I (Exod 6:25-7:11). Photograph PAM 42.582. By permission of
the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel.
3*. The large Isaiah scroll from cave 1 at Qumran, lQisaa, col. XXVIII (Isa 34:136:2). John C. Trever, PhD, digital image by James E. Trever.
4*. The large Isaiah scroll from cave 1 at Qumran, lQisaa, col. XXXIII (Isa 40:228; see pl. 5). John C. Trever, PhD, digital image by James E. Trever.
5*. The large Isaiah scroll from cave 1 at Qumran, lQisaa: col. XXXIII (Isa
28) as published in DJD XXXII (2010). By permission of E. Ulrich and P. Flint.
6*. The short Isaiah scroll from cave 1 at Qumran, lQisab: col. XXI (Isa 48:1749:15) as published in DJD XXXII (2010). By permission of E. Ulrich and P. Flint.
7*. A fragment of the book of Psalms from cave 4 at Qumran: 4QPsb cols. XXXXIII (Ps 102:10-103:11). By permission of the Israel Antiquities Authority,
Jerusalem, Israel.
8*. The so-called Psalms Scroll from cave 11 at Qumran, llQPsa, cols. IX and x
(Ps 119:59-73, 82-96), published in DJD IV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965). By
permission of the Israel Museum and the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem, Israel.
9*. A Jeremiah text from cave 4 at Qumran, 4QJerc, col. XXI Oer 30:17-31:4),
published in DJD XV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997). Photograph PAM 43.103. By
permission of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel..
10* and lOa*. Tefillin, 4QPhyl J verso, from Qumran (Deut 5:24-32; 6:2-3),
photograph and. transcription, published in DJD VI (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). By
permission of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel.
11 *.The Aleppo codex, p. 7 (Deut 31:28-32:14). By permission of the Ben-Z vi
Institute, Jerusalem, Israel.
12*. The Aleppo codex, p. 48 (Judg 5:25-6:10). By permission of the Ben-Zvi
Institute, Jerusalem, Israel.
13*. Codex Leningrad B19A (Exod 14:28-15:14). Photograph by Bruce and
Kenneth Zuckerman, West Semitic Research, with the collaboration of the
Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center. Courtesy Russian National Library
(Salty kov -Shchedrin ).
14*. A manuscript with Palestinian vocalization from the Cairo Genizah (Ps
71:5-72:4): Cambridge University Library T-S 12, 196. By permission of the
Syndics of Cambridge University Library.
15*. A manuscript with "simple" Babylonian vocalization from the Cairo
Genizah, EC 11, with notes from the Masorah (1 Chr 3:15-4:9): Cambridge
xvi
Plates
University Library T-S Box A38,5. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge

University Library.
16*. Table of the biblical accents, appended to BHS.
17*. A manuscript of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Num 34:26-35:8) written by
the scribe Abi-Berakhatah in the year 121511216 Qewish and National University
Library, Jerusalem, Sam. 2 6). By permission of the Jewish and National University Library, Jerusalem.
18*. The Kennicott 1776-1780 edition of Gen 49:6-14.
19*. Exod 20:13f-20 (MT 20:14[18]-17[21]) according to the Samaritan
Pentateuch (edition of Tal-Florentin, 2011). By permission of the Haim Rubin TelAviv University Press. The MT (right) and SP (left) appear on facing pages.
20*. Codex Vaticanus (Cod. Vat. Gr. 1209 or B) of the Septuagint (1 Sam 17:4418:22) from Bibliorum 55. graecorum codex Vaticanits 1209 (cod. B) denovo phototypice
expressus iussa et cura praesidium bybliothecae Vaticanae, pars prima, Testamentum
Vetus, val. I (Mediolani: Vlricum Hoepl, 1905) 333.
21*. The Gottingen edition of the Septuagint Qer 1:1-5): J. Ziegler, Jeremias,
Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate
societatis litterarum gottingensis editum, val. XV (2nd ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1976).
22*. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal 1-:fever (Zech 8:19-9:5)
published in DJD VIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). Photograph Israel Antiquities
Authority 204.602. By permission of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.
23*. MS Berlin Or. Fol. 1-4 of the Prophets, number 150 in the collection of
Kennicott 1776-1780 (Isa 1:1-4). By permission of bbk, Berlin I Staatsbibliothek
zu Berlin, Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz I Art Resource, NY.
24*. MS Vatican Neophyti 1 of the Palestinian Targum to the Torah (Lev 15:3116:11), from: The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch Codex Vatican (Neofiti 1)
Qerusalem, 1970). By permission of the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome.
25*. MS Ambrosianus (Milan, Ambrosian Library, B. 21 Inf.) of the Peshitta
(Lam 3:41-5:22), from: Translatio Syra-Pescitto, Veteris Testamenti ex codice
Ambrosiano (Milan: Pogliani, 1876-1883).
26*. Second Rabbinic Bible (Miqra 'ot cedolot), Venice: Bamberg, 1524-1525
(Gen 42:3-20).
27*. BH (3'd [7th] edition: Stuttgart, 1951): Gen 22:18-23:13.
28*. BHS:
29*. BHQ: Esth 1:1-3.
30*. Hebrew University Bible (Isa 1:7-12), from: Goshen-Gottstein, HUB, Isaiah.
31 *. The development of the square script, from: J. Naveh, Early History of the
Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography (2nd ed.;
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987), fig. 70. By permission of the Magnes Press, Hebrew
University, Jerusalem.
32*. The development of the square script, from: F.M. Cross, Jr., "The
Development of the Jewish Scripts," in Essays in Honor ofW.F. Albright, 137, figure
1. By permission of F.M. Cross, Cambridge, MA.
PREFACE
This edition, the third in English, is formally a sequel to the second
edition (2002).1 However, in many ways, it is a rewriting of the first
edition (1992) since, in the preparation of the second edition, I needed to
limit myself to the existing camera-ready page format, thereby not
permitting extensive omissions or additions. Thus, for the present
edition, I covered two turbulent decades of research in an area that is
developing very rapidly. When reviewing the literature of these twenty
years, I was amazed by the number of studies written on each of the
areas covered by the umbrella term "textual criticism of the Hebrew
Bible." The many studies quoted in this book that date between 2005 and
2011 bear witness to this abundance. The study of Greek Scripture is a
prime example of the advancement in learning. During these two
decades, the publication of the biblical Judean Desert scrolls has been
completed and their impact is felt in almost every chapter of TCHB 3 . The
description of these scrolls (ch. 2Ic) has been greatly enriched and,
equally important, the status of the Masoretic Text (MT = m), the
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP = m.), and the Septuagint (LXX = ) is now
much clearer in the wake of the new discoveries. The newly found scrolls
also greatly enriched the description of the technical aspects of the
textual transmission inch. 4B, necessitating a complete rewriting.
At the same time, I also had to cover two decennia of my own
evolving views on large and small matters. 2 I can safely say that no stone
was left unturned. Even if the book appears to resemble the previous
edition due to the only slightly modified tables, a closer perusal of the
text will reveal many changes in every paragraph, including their
expansion or even deletion, as well as completely novel sections, and, in
one case, a new chapter. Six plates were altered, while most have been
improved. The larger scope of this edition is not immediately obvious as
many sections are presented in a smaller font.
Extensive changes include:
Addition of a glossary (pp. 417-23). Words and concepts that are explained
in the glossary are indicated with a petite"+" sign (e.g. Masorah+) in the running
text, though not in all their occurrences.
1
The sequence of the editions is as follows: Hebrew (Bialik Institute, 1989); first English
edition (1992); German (Kohlhammer, 1997); Russian (Biblisko-Bagaslovski Institut Sv.
Apostola Andrjeya, 2001); second English edition (2001).
See the studies included in the second volume of my collected writings: HB, GB, and
Qumran (2008) and my monograph Scribal Practices (2004). For both, see below, p. Iii.
xviii
Preface
Addition of a didactic guide (pp. lvii-lviii).

Major rewriting of ch. 3 ("History of the Biblical Text"), especially 3B-C
("Shape of the Biblical Text in Early Periods, Development of the Biblical Text"),
including new sections: A4 ("Central Position of m in Tradition and Research")
and c2 ("The Myth of the Stabilization of the Hebrew Scripture Text").
o Expansion of ch. 9 ("Scholarly and Non-Scholarly Editions") from 9 pages in
TCHB 2 to 35 pages. This chapter provides a detailed review of these editions and
offers practical guidance for their use. The chapter includes an appendix
describing "Modern Translations as Bible Editions."
o Addition of ch. 10 ("Computer-Assisted Tools for Textual Criticism"). This
chapter describes the advantages of computer-aided research in the 21't century.
In addition, the bibliographies in chapters 1-8 are expanded with sections listing
toofs."
o
o
Smaller changes include:

New notations: ffi+ and m-group (seep. xix).
Shortening of the theoretical introductions, e.g. the one to ch. 7.
o Omission of l.D (Definitions and Concepts) and addition of new sections D-E
(Text, Canon, and Sacred Status, Subjectivity of This Book).
o Major rewriting of ch. 21A1b ("Development of the Consonantal Text") (pp.
22-36 in TCHB 2 ).
o Addition of ch. 2Io5 ("Non-Biblical Sources: Quotations and 'Rewritten
Scripture' Texts").
o Expansion of ch. 2IIB1-2 ("Greek Scripture") from 14 pp. in TCHB 2 to 21 pp.
o Change in concept: Chapters 3B and 7B are no longer focused on m. Textual
witnesses later than m are also taken into consideration in the textual-literary
analysis.
o The closeness
and ut is stressed on pp. 82 and 136.
o Detailed recording of the evidence for<!:, 5, 0 in the "examples."
o The number of pericopes in the textual witnesses that deviate significantly
from m and which contribute to our understanding of the growth of the biblical
literature has grown from 15 inch. 7B in TCHB 2 to 23.
o
o
Several colleagues and students provided me with much appreciated remarks

on parts of the manuscript: S. White Crawford, S. Daley, H. Debel, D. Dimant, L.
Gottlieb, J. Kiffiak, D. Knoll, A. Lange, N. Mizrahi, H. Patmore, Y. Penkower, P.
Rodgers, S. Schorch, M. Segal, A. Suris, and R. Zer. I also learned much from the
many reviews of TCHB 2, especially Kreuzer, "Text" (see p. xlii).
The decisive stages in preparing the revision were carried out during my
tenure as fellow at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies (2010) and
at the Lichtenberg-Kolleg in Gottingen (2010-2011). Both institutions are to be
thanked for their hospitality, assistance, and pleasant work environment.
Special thanks are due to Janice Karnis, Jerusalem, who stylized, indexed, and
formatted, gracefully and skillfully, and to Johannes Muller, Gottingen who carefully checked all the references and gave me the benefit of his critical insights.
Fortress Press is to be thanked for encouraging me to prepare this edition and
for their practical help at all levels.
Emanuel Tov
Jerusalem, Pesach 5771 (2011)
ABBREVIATIONS AND SOURCES

General Abbreviations and Signs
word+
a
B.M.
Dtr.
(j)
Luc
K
kaige-Th
LXX
m
mK
mMS(S)
mO
!lH
m-group
m-like
Mm
Mp
OG
P(ap).
p.m.
Q
R.
RaDaK
a
5
s.m.
SamJosh
Sof
8'
([
([F
cr:J
([N
([0
q:Ps-J
Reference to word explained in the glossary (pp. 417-23)

Aquila+
British Museum
Deuteronomistic+
Septuagint translation+ (for manuscripts A[lexandrinusL B, S,
seep. 133)
The "original" text of reconstructed in the Gottingen
Septuagint series+ or the edition of Rahlfs-Hanhart, Septuaginta
as opposed to later revisions correcting (OG+) towards m
Lucianic+ tradition (mainly MSS b,o,c2,e 2 ) of
Ketib+
kaige-Theodotion +
Septuagint translation()
Masoretic Text+ (MT)
Ketib+
Individual manuscript(s) of m according to the editions of
Kennicott+ 1776-1780 and. de Rossi+
Qere+
Combined evidence of m ([ 5 D
Combined evidence of the representatives ofm
Texts closely resembling m found at Qumran, distinct from
texts reflecting m found at the other Judean Desert sites
Masorah magna+
Masorah parva+
Old Greek+ translation
Papyrus
Prima manu (the first scribal hand)
Qere+
Rabbi
Rabbi David Kimhi
Symmachus+
Peshi tta + translation, in Syriac
Secunda manu (a second "hand" in a manuscript)
Samaritan book of Joshua+
Tractate Soferim+
Theodotion +
Targum
Fragmentary Targum(im) +
Targum Jonathan+
MS Vatican Neophyti+ 1 of the Targum
Targum Onqelos+
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan+
XX
Theodotion
Tiberian MT+
Vulgate+
Vetus Latina (Old Latin)+
Samaritan Pentateuch+
Combined evidence of m. and the pre-Samaritan+ Qumran
scrolls
(ut) videtur (apparently)
Reconstructed elements in a fragmentary text
Parallel text
Element lacking
An author's or editor's additions; also: explanations by E.T.
Elements in m lacking in <B (e.g. p. 293)
Th
TMT
I)
VL
lll
m.-group
vi d.
[1
II
>
< ... >
{}
Some Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible

The Aleppo codex+
The Cairo codex of the Prophets ..... p. 45
Pentateuch codex 3, Karaite synagogue in Cairo ..... p. 45
Codex Leningrad B19A +
MS 232, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York
MS Sassoon 1053 ..... p. 46
c
C3
L
N
st
Rabbinic Texts
b.
m.
t.
y.
Babylonian Talmud
Mishnah
Tosefta
Jerusalem Talmud
The abbreviations of the tractates in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Babylonian Talmud,

Jerusalem Talmud, and other rabbinic works follow the conventions of The SBL
Handbook of Style (ed. P.H. Alexander et al.; 1999). Massekhet Soferim (= Sof.) is
quoted according to M. Higger, mskt swprym wnlww 'lyh mdrs mskt swprym b'
(New York: de-be Rabbanan, 1937; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970).
Some Editions of the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible

Adi
A. Dotan,
i1P'Ji1 'El '?.!l
C'::J1n:;l1
i1i1n
(Tel Aviv: Adi/School of Jewish

Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1973 [-1986]); see also Dotan 2001
iiJJ'J'? i'
]:::l
'?iD
BH
Biblia Hebraica (Pt and 2nd ed.: ed. R. Kittel; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906,
1909-1913; 3'd ed.: ed. R. Kittel and P. Kahle; Stuttgart: Wiirttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1929-1937) ..... p. 350
BHS
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. W. Rudolph & K. Elliger; Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967-1977) ..... p. 350
xxi

BHQ
Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. A. Schenker; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004- ) -+ p. 355
Breuer, 1977-1982
M. Breuer,
1n:J '-,rD ii1100ii1

'::l '-,ll cm1o ,C':J1n:l
,'-, C':J11pii 1' ':Jn:l1, vols. 1-3 (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook,
ii1m
1977-
1982; one-volume edition: 1989)

Breuer, Horev
1' ':Jn:l,
1n:J '-,w ii1100ii1
'::l '-,ll C'iiJ10 C':Jm:l1
ii11n
1'-, C':J11pii
Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa Redacted According to the Text and

Masora of the Aleppo Codex and Close Manuscripts (Jerusalem: Horev, 1997)
Cassuto ("Jerusalem Bible")
C':J1n:l1
U. Cassuto, -p '"::lll ii1100ii '::l" cm1o ,c'-,w11'
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1953)
Cohen, Miqra 'at Gedolot "Haketer"
M. Cohen, ':Jn:l '::l-'-,ll n'll10 ii11iiii ,iiiZ11n 110' n111iiO ,1n:lii m'-,nJ
'::l-'-,ll mt:lp ii11001 ii'-,m ii1100 ell
'-,w p'110ii ii1100ii
ii11n
,c'p'nll 1'
1n:;,'
A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of 'Miqra 'at Gedolot' Based on

the Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval MSS, vols. 1-8 (Ramat Can: University Press, 1992-2007)
Dotan 2001
A. Dotan, C':J1n:l1
ii11n, Biblia Hebraica Leningradiensia, Prepared
according to the Vocalization, Accents and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben
Asher in the Leningrad Codex (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001) =
revision of the Adi edition, above
Ginsburg
C.D. Ginsburg, r::::l'01::l1 '::l '-,ll, ii100ii '::l-'-,ll :Jt:l'ii pno ,C':J1n:l
ii11n
C'01J1m c'p'nll 1' ':Jn:l 10 mmii, C'::l1'?n Cll
vols. I-IV (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1894-1937; repr. of
the 1926 edition: Jerusalem: Makor, 1970; one-volume edition with
shortened apparatus: London 1894)1
HUB
Hebrew University Bible ..... p. 357
Jerusalem Croum
1n:J '-,w ii1100ii1
'::l '-,ll c'-,wn:J n'1:Jllii

1"m ,c''-,rD11' 1n:;,
':l110 :J1ii nt:l'iD:J ,., C':J11pii 1' ':Jn:J,
Jerusalem Crown, The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (scholarly

supervision: Y. Ofer; Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 2000)2
NJPS
JPS Hebrew-English Tanach, The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New
JPS Translation (2"d ed.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999)
Kennicott, 1776-1780 ..... p. xli
1 Usually the 1926 edition is quoted.

2 This edition is accompanied by Glatzer, Companion Volume (2002).-+ p. 73, n. 117
xxii
Koren
M. Koren, c:nn:l
;"Ti1n
Qerusalem: Koren, 1962, 1966, etc.)
Letteris
P'110 ,C':lm:l1
:-rim (Vienna: J.P.
M.H. Letteris, :-rioo;-r 'El-?.tl
Sollinger's Witwe, 1852; two-column edition: Berlin, The British and
Foreign Bible Society, 1904)
Miqra 'at cedolot
Rabbinic Bibles RB1, RB2
RB1
Rabbinic Bible 1 (Miqra 'at cedolot 1516-1517)
'm '"iVi iV1i'El C.tl1
RB2
C.tl iV01n ,C'iiV.tl1
(ed. Felix Pratensis; Venice: Bomberg, 1516-1517)- pp. 71-2

Rabbinic Bible 2 (Miqra 'at cedolot 1524-1525)
'm
'i1
C.tl iD01n;"T ... iD1n:-r ;"11;"1' i.tliD
(ed. Jacob Ben-Hayyim ben Adoniyahu;. Venice: Bomberg, 1524-1525)

- pp. 71-2
Sinai
(Tel Aviv: Sinai, 1949, 1960)
C':l1n:l
;"Ti1n
N.H. Snaith,
;"Ti100:-r 'El ?.tl
Snaith
P'110 C':lm:l1
:-rim iElO
(London:
The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1958)

Tanach Sinzanim
E. Yoseph, C'JO'O ,C':lm:l1
Walton, Polyglotta (1653-1657)
- p.liv
:-rim
Qerusalem: Feldheim, 2008)
Books of Hebrew Scripture

Gen
Exod
Lev
Num
Deut
Josh
Judg
1-2 Sam
1-2 Kgs
Isa
Jer
Ezek
Hos
Joel
Amos
Obad
Jonah
Mic
Nah
Hab
Zeph
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
1-2 Samuel
1-2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah

Hag
Zech
Mal
Ps
Job
Prov
Ruth
Cant
Qoh
Lam
Esth
Dan
Ezra
Neh
1-2 Chr
xxiii
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Psalms
Job
Proverbs
Ruth
Canticles
Qoheleth
Lamentations
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1-2 Chronicles
Texts from the Judean Desert

In texts quoted from the Judean Desert scrolls, the following diacritical
marks are used:
letter that has not been fully preserved, but can be identified
with a reasonable degree of certainty
letter of which only a fraction has been preserved
reconstructed letter (not preserved on the leather)
erased letter
The texts from the Judean Desert are indicated as follows:

number of the cave (for Qumran: 1-11)
identification of the site (Q =Qumran, Mas = Masada, Hev = Hever,
Mur = Murabba'at, etc.)
name of the biblical book (e.g. Gen =Genesis)
number of the copy (the first copy found in the excavations is called
uau, the second copy ubu, etc.)
Papyrus fragments are denoted "pap," and fragments written in the paleoHebrew+ script are indicated "paleo" (e.g. 4QpaleoExodm).
The numbers listed after the cave numbers (e.g. 1-llQ for Qumran), such as
4Q175, refer to their sequential number in the official publications listed in Tov,
Revised Lists (2010). The biblical texts are quoted from the volumes in the DJD
series (for which vol. XXXIX and Tov, Revised Lists serve as an index), in which
almost all texts are included; see also Ulrich, BQS.
Some abbreviations for the biblical and non-biblical texts follow.

1QapGen
1QHa
1Qisaa
Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, cave 1

Thanksgiving Scroll from Qumran, cave 1
The first, long, Isaiah scroll from Qumran, cave 1
xxiv
1Qisab
1QM
1QpHab
1QS
1QSa
4QMMT
4QRP
4QTanl:t
4QTest
5/6I-:IevPs
8I-:Iev XII gr
llQP
MasPsa,b
Murisa
MurXII
The second, short, Isaiah scroll from Qumran, cave 1

War Scroll,
from Qumran, cave 1
The pesher on Habakkuk from Qumran, cave 1
Manual of Discipline, Serekh hafrom Qumran, cave 1
Appendix A to 1QS
4QMiq?at Ma 'ase ha-Torah from Qumran, cave 4
"Reworked Pentateuch" from Qumran, cave 4 (4Q158, 4Q364367), now regarded as a biblical manuscript- p. 323
4QTan}:tumim (4Q176) from Qumran, cave 4
4QTestimonia (4Q175) from Qumran, cave 4
Psalms scroll from Na}:tal I-:Iever, cave "5 I 6"
Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Na}:tal I-:Iever, cave 8
Temple Scroll from Qumran, cave 11 (11Q19)
Psalms manuscripts a and b from Masada
The Isaiah Scroll from Wadi Murabba'at
Minor Prophets Scroll from Wadi Murabba'at
Editions of Textual Sources Quoted in This Book

113MSS
\13*
113Luc
m
mMSS
s
([F
([1
([N
([o
oMSS
1ll
The individual volumes in the Gottingen Septuagint+ series,

when extant, the Cambridge Septuagint+ series, or RahlfsHanhart, Septuaginta
The "original" text of \13 reconstructed in the Gottingen Septuagint
series or in Rahlfs-Hanhart, Septuaginta, as opposed to later
revisions correcting the translation towards m
The Lucianic+ tradition (mainly MSS b,o,c2,e 2 according to the
sigla used in the "Cambridge Septuagint") of \13, quoted
according to the editions of the Gottingen and Cambridge
Septuagint
BHS- p. 350
Individual manuscript(s) of m according to the editions of
Kennicott+ 1776-1780 and de Rossi+
The Leiden edition - p. 151, n. 256, when extant, or Lee's
edition- n. 257
Edition of Klein- p. 148, n. 250
Edition of Rieder- p. 148, n. 250
Edition of Diez Macho- p. 149, n. 253
Edition of Sperber- p. 148, n. 250
Edition of Weber- p. 153, n. 262
Edition of Tal-Florentin, Samaritan Version (2010), almost
identical to Tal, Shekhem
PERIODICALS, REFERENCE WORKS, AND

SERIALS
AASF
AB
ABO
AbrN
Annales academiae scientiarum fennicae

Anchor Bible
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vols. 1-6 (ed. D.N. Freedman;
New York etc.: Doubleday, 1992)
Abr-Nahrain
An Bib
Analecta biblica
ANRW
Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt
AOAT
AOS
Alter Orient und Altes Testament

American Oriental Series
ASTI
Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
ATA
Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen
BA
BASOR
Biblical Archaeologist
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BETL
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Bib
Biblica
BibOr
Biblica et orientalia
BIOSCS
Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and

Cognate Studies
Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society
Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
Biblischer Kommentar
Bible Review
Bibliotheca sacra
The Bible Translator
BJPES
BJRL
BK
BRev
BSac
BT
BWANT
Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen

Testament
BZ
Biblische Zeitsc:hrift
BZAW
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fi.ir die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft
CB
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CBQ
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
ConB
CSIC
Coniectanea biblica
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
DB
DB Sup
DSD
EBib
EncBib
EncBrit
Enc]ud
Erlsr
Dictionnaire de Ia Bible
Dictionnaire de Ia Bible: Supplement
Dead Sea Discoveries
Etudes bibliques
Encyclopaedia Biblica (Heb.)
Encyclopaedia Britannica
Encyclopaedia Judaica
Eretz-Israel
xxvi
Est Bib
ETL
FRLANT
Estudios b(blicos
Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
HAR
HAT
Hen
HS
HSM
HSS
HTR
HUCA
Hebrew Annual Review

Handbuch zum Alten Testament
Henoch
Hebrew Studies
Harvard Semitic Monographs
Harvard Semitic Studies
Harvard Theological Review
Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC
IDBSup
IEJ
IES
IOMS
International Critical Commentary

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume
Israel Exploration Journal
Israel Exploration Society
The International Organization for Masoretic Studies
Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia
UniversihJ
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Bible and Religion
Journal of Cuneiform Studies
Journal of Jewish Studies
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
Jewish Quarterly Review
Jewish Quarterly Review: Supplement
Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and
Roman Periods
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement
Series
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement
Series
Journal of Semitic Studies
Journal ofTheological Studies
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament
Monatsschrift for Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens
Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen
New Century Bible
Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift
Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
Orbis biblicus et orientalis
JANESCU
JAOS
JBL
JBR
JCS
JJS
JNES
JNSL
JQR
JQRSup
JSJ
JSOT
JSOTSup
JSPSup
JSS
JTS
KeH
MGWJ
MSU
NAWG
NCB
NKZ
NTT
OBO
OCD
OLZ
OTS
PAA]R
PSBA
PTS
RB
RE]
RHR
RevQ
SBL
SBLDS
SBLMasS
SBLSCS
SBT
ScrHier
SOTSMS
STD]
TECC
TLZ
TRE
TRu
TSK
TU
TynBul
UF
VT
VTSup
WT]
ZAW
ZDMG
Oxford Classical Dictionary

Orientalische Literaturzeitung
Oudtestamentische Studien
Proceedings of the American Academy of ]ewish Research
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology
Patristische Texte und Studien
Revue biblique
Revue des etudes juives
Revue de l'histoire des religions
Revue de Qumran
Society of Biblical Literature
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
Society of Biblical Literature Masoretic Studies
Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate
Studies
Studies in Biblical Theology
Scripta hierosolymitana
Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
Textos y Estudios (del Seminario Filologico) Cardenal
Cisneros
Theologische Literaturzeitung
Theologische Realenzyklopiidie
Theologische Rundschau
Theologische Studien und Kritiken
Texte und Untersuchungen
Tyndale Bulletin
Ugarit-Forschungen
Vetus Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum Supplements
Westminster Theological journal
Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenliindischen Gesellschaft
XXVI!
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
The following list contains bibliographical abbreviations of frequently quoted
studies. Much additional literature is mentioned in the course of the discussion,
especially in the headings of the various sections.
Accordance
Accordance computer program
Aejmelaeus, Trail
A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays
(revised and expanded edition; Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2007)
Albrektson, Text
B. Albrektson, Text, Translation, Theology: Selected Essays on the Hebrew Bible
(SOTSMS; Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010)
Andersen-Forbes, Spelling
F.l. Andersen & A.D. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (BibOr 41; Rome.:
Biblical Institute Press, 1986)
Andersen-Freedman, 4QSamb
F.I. Andersen & D.N. Freedman, "Another Look at 4QSamb," RevQ 14
(1989) 7-29
Ap-Thomas, Primer
D.R. Ap-Thomas, A Primer of Old Testament Text Criticism (2nd ed.; FBBS 14;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966)
Archaeology of the Books of Samuel

Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary
History (ed. P. Hugo & A. Schenker; VTSup 132; Leiden: Brill, 2010)
Barr, Comparative Philology
J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1968; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987, "with additions
and corrections")
-,Variable Spellings
-, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (The Schweich Lectures of the
British Academy; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
Barth-Steck, Exegese
H. Barth & O.H. Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leitfaden der Methodik:
Ein Arbeitsbuch for Proseminare, Seminare und Vorlesungen (13th ed.;
Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993)
Barthelemy, Devanciers
D. Barthelemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963)
-,Etudes
-, Etudes d'histoire du texte de /'Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg/
Gottingen: Editions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978)
-,Interim Report
- et al., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text
Project, vols. 1-5 (1 51 ; 2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1974, 19791980)
XXX
-,Critique textuelle 1982

-, Critique textuelle de !'Ancien Testament, 1. josue-Esther (OBO 50/1;
Fribourg I Gottingen: Editions Universitaires /Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1982)

-, Critique textuelle de !'Ancien Testament, 2. Isai'e, jeremie, Lamentations
(OBO 50/2; Fribourg/Gottingen: University
Ruprecht, 1986)
Press/Vandenhoeck &

-, Critique textuelle de !'Ancien Testament, 3. Ezechiel, Daniel et les 12
Prophetes (OBO 50 I 3; Fribourg I Gottingen: Editions U niversitaires I
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992)
-, Critique textuelle 2005

-,Critique textuelle de !'Ancien Testament, 4.Psaumes (OBO 50/ 4; Fribourg/
Gottingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005)
BOB
F. Brown, S.R. Driver, & C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907)
Beit-Arie, "Practices"
M. Beit-Arie, "Some Technical Practices Employed in Hebrew Dated
Medieval Manuscripts," Litterae textuales (Codicologica 2, Elements pour
une codicologie comparee; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 72-92
Ben-I-:Iayyim, LOT
Z. Ben-I-:Iayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic
amongst the Samaritans, vols. 1-5 (Heb.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 19571977)
-,Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew

-, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, Based on the Recitation of the Law in
Comparison with the Tiberian and Other jewish Traditions Oerusalem/
Winona Lake, IN: Magnes/Eisenbrauns, 2000)
Bentzen, Introduction
A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, vols. I-II (7th ed.; Copenhagen: Gad, 1967)
BibleWorks
BibleWorks computer program
Biblia Qumranica
Biblia Qumranica, Vol. 3B, Minor Prophets (ed. D. Ego et a!.; Leiden: Brill,
2004)
Biblical Canons
The Biblical Canons (ed. J.M. Auwers & H.J. de Jonge; BETL 163; Leuven:
U ni versi ty Press I Peeters, 2003)
Bj
La Sainte Bible, traduite en
sous Ia direction de !'Ecole Biblique de
jerusalem (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1956; 2nd ed., 1973)
de Boer, Samuel
P.A.H. de Boer, Research into the Text of 1 Samuel I-XVI: A Contribution to
the Study of the Books of Samuel (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1938)
xxxi
Bogaert, "Septante"
P.-M. Bogaert, "Septante et versions grecques," DBSup (Paris: Letouzey &
Ane, 1993) XII.536-692
Borbone, Osea
P.G. Borbone, Il libro del profeta Osea: Edizione critica del testo ebraico
(Quaderni di Henoch 2; Torino: Zamorani, [1990])
Border Line
On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism (Heb.; ed. z. Talshir & D.
Amara; Beer-Sheva XVIII; Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Press, 2005)
Brekelmans, Questions
Questions disputees d'Ancien Testament: Methode et theologie (ed. C.
Brekelmans; rev. ed.; BETL 33; Leuven: Peeters, 1989)
Brennpunkt
Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der
griechischen Bibel (ed. H.-J. Fabry & U. Offerhaus; Stuttgart/Berlin:
Kohlhammer, 2001)
Breuer, Aleppo Codex
M. Breuer, The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible (Heb. with
Eng. summ.; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1976)
Brock, Bibliography
S.P. Brocket al., A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1973)
Brooke, New Qumran Texts
New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. G.J. Brooke
with F. Garda Martinez; STDJ 15; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1994)
-, "E Pluribus Unum"
-, "E Pluribus Unum: Textual Variety and Definitive Interpretation in the
Qumran Scrolls," in Historical Context (2000) 107-19
-,"Demise"
-, "The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between
Higher and Lower Criticism," in New Directions in Qumran Studies:
Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8-10 September
2003 (ed. J.G. Campbell ef al.; Library of Second Temple Studies 52;
London: T& T Clark International, 2005) 26-42
Brotzman, Textual Criticism
E.R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994)
Burney, Kings
C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1903; repr. New York: Ktav, 1970)
-,Judges
-, The Book of Judges (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909; repr. New York: Ktav,
1970)
Cappellus, Critica Sacra
L. Cappellus, Critica Sacra sive de variis quae in sacris Veteris Testamenti libris
occurrunt lectionibus libri sex (Paris: Cramoisy, 1650; Halle: Hendel, 1775[1786])
xxxii
CATSS
Computer-Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (Philadelphia /Jerusalem,
directed by R.A. Kraft & E. Tov)
Chiesa," Appunti"
B. Chiesa, "Appunti di storia della critica del testo dell' Antico Testamento
ebraico," Henoch 12 (1990) 3-14
Childs, Introduction
B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM,
1979)
Clines, Esther
D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (JSOTSup 30; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1984)
-, Dictionary
-, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press &
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993- )
Cogan, "Assyriological Perspective"
M. Cogan, "Some Text-Critical Issues in the Hebrew Bible from an
Assyriological Perspective," Textus 22 (2005) 1-20
Cohen, "Orthography"
Menahem Cohen, "The Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Its
Place in the History of Orthography and Its Relation with the MT
Orthography," Beth Mikra 64 (1976) 54-70; 66 (1976) 361-91 (Heb.)
-, qdwst hnwsh
-, "h 'ydy 'h bdbr qdwst
l 'wtywtyw wbyqwrt h.tkst," Death 47 (1978) 83101; repr. The Bible and Us (ed. U. Simon; Heb.; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1979) 42--69
-,"Consonantal Character"
-, "The Consonantal Character of First Biblical Printings: The Editio
Princeps of the Entire Bible Soncino 1488," Bar-llan XVIII-XIX (Heb. with
Eng. summ.; Ramat Gan: University Press, 1981) 47-67
-, "Masoretic Text"
-, "The 'Masoretic Text' and the Extent of Its Influence on the
Transmission of the Biblical Text in the Middle Ages," Studies in Bible and
Exegesis (Heb.; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1986) 2.229-56
-, Miqra 'at Gedolot "Haketer"
-, Miqra 'at Gedolot "Haketer": A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of
'Miqra 'at Gedolot' Based on the Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval MSS, vols. 1-8
(Ramat Gan: University Press, 1992-2007)
-, "Introduction"
-, Miqra 'at Gedolot "Haketer": Joshua-Judges (1992) 16*-99* (Introduction to
the Miqra 'at Gedolot "Haketer" edition; He b.)
Cohen-Freedman, "Snaith"
M.B. Cohen & D.B. Freedman, "The Snaith Bible: A Critical Examination of
the Hebrew Bible Published in 1958 by the British and Foreign Bible
Society," HUCA 45 (1974) 97-132
Cohn, T efillin
Y.B. Cohn, Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World (Brown Judaic
Studies 361; Providence, RI: Brown University, 2008)
xxxiii
Complutensian Polyglot
Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, complectentia Vetus Testamentum, etc. (in Complutenti
Universitate, 1514-1517)
Cook, "Relationship"
J. Cook, "The Relationship between Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism
and Exegesis: An Interactive One?," Textus 24 (2009) 119-32
Cornill, Ezechiel
C.H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886)
Cox, VI Congress
VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies (ed. C.E. Cox; SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987)
-, VII Congress
VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies (ed. C.E. Cox; SBLSCS 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991)
Crawford-Joosten-Ulrich, OHB
S.W. Crawford, J. Joosten, & E. Ulrich, "Sample Editions of the Oxford
Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1-9, 1 Kings 11:1-8, and Jeremiah 27:1-10
(34 G)," VT 58 (2008) 352-66
Cross, "Evolution"
F.M. Cross, "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts," in Cross-Talmon,
QHBT (1975) 306-20
-, ALQU
-, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (London:
Duckworth, 1958); The Ancient Library of Qumran (3'd ed.; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995)
-, "Fixation"
-, "The Fixation of the Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible," in id., From
Epic to Canaan: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore/London:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 205-18
Cross-Freedman, Studies
- & D.N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (Baltimore: John
Hopkins University, 1950; 2nd ed. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975)
Cross-Talmon, QHBT
Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (ed. F.M. Cross & S. Talmon;
Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975)
Crown, The Samaritans
The Samaritans (ed. A.D. Crown; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989)
-, Samaritan Scribes
-, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (TSAJ 80; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2001)
Daley, Textual Basis
S.C. Daley, The Textual Basis of English Translations of the Hebrew Bible, Ph.D.
diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 2007
Davidson, Hebrew Text
S. Davidson, The Hebrew Text -of the Old Testament, Revised from Critical
Sources; Being an Attempt to Present a Purer and More Correct Text than the
Received One of Van der Hooght; by the Aid of the Best Existing Materials
(London: Bagster, 1855)
xxxiv
Debel, "Variant Literary Editions"

H. Debel, "Greek 'Variant Literary Editions' to the Hebrew Bible?" JSJ 41
(2010) 161-90
Deist, Text
F.E. Deist, Towards the Text of the Old Testament (Pretoria: D.R. Church
Booksellers, 1978; 2nd ed.: 1981)
-,Witnesses
-, Witnesses to the Old Testament: Introducing Old Testament Textual
Criticism (The Literature of the Old Testament, vol. 5; Pretoria: NG
Kerkboekhandel, 1988)
Delitzsch, Lese- und Schreibfehler
F. Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament nebst den dem
Schrifttexte einverleibten Rand no ten Klassifiziert (Berlin I Leipzig: Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger, 1920)
De Septuaginta
De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour of f. W. Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday
(ed. A. Pietersma & C. Cox; Mississauga, Ont: BenBen Publications, 1984)
Dfez Merino, Biblia babil6nica
L. Dfez Merino, La Biblia babil6nica (Madrid: CSIC, 1975)
Diggers at the Well

Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the
Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka & J.F. Elwolde;
Leiden: Brill, 2000)
DJD
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan), vols. I-XL (Oxford: Clarendon,
1955-2010)
DJD I
D. Barthelemy & J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD I; Oxford: Clarendon,
1955)
D/DII
P. Benoit, O.P., J.T. Milik, & R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabba'at (DJD II;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1961)
DJD III
M. Baillet et al., Les 'petites grottes' de Qumran (DJD III; Oxford: Clarendon,
1962)
D/DIV
J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11
(DJD IV; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1965)
DJDVI
R. de Vaux & J.T. Milik, Qumran grotte 4.Il: I. Archeologie, II. Tefillin,
Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128-4Q157) (DJD VI; Oxford: Clarendon, 1977)
DJD VII
M. Baillet, Qumran grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520) (DJD VII; Oxford: Clarendon,
1982)
DJD VIII
E. Tov with the collaboration of R.A. Kraft, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll
from Na}:zal Hever (BHevXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection I) (DJD VIII; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1990)
XXXV
DJD IX
P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, & J.E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew
and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD IX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992)
DJDXI
E. Eshel et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam & M. Brady, Qumran
Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XI; Oxford: Clarendon,
1998)
DJD XII
Qumran Cave 4. VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. E. Ulrich & F.M. Cross; DJD
XII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)
DJDXIV
Qumran Cave 4./X: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich & F.M.
Cross; DJD XIV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995)
DJD XVII
F.M. Cross, D.W. Parry, R. Saley, & E. Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1-2
Samuel (DJD XVII; Oxford: Clarendon, 2005)
DJD XXIII
F. Garcia Martinez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar, & A.S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave
11.II: 11Q2-18, 11Q20-30 (DJD XXIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998)
DJD XXXII
E. Ulrich & P.W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II, Parts 1-2: The Isaiah Scrolls (DJD
XXXII; Oxford: Clarendon, 2010)
DJD XXXVIII
J. Charlesworth et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam & M. Brady,
Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert (DJD XXXVIII; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2000)
DJDXXXIX
E. Tov et al., The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to
the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (DJD XXXIX; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2002)
Dogniez, Bibliography
C. Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint= Bibliographie de la Septante 19701993 (VTSup 60; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995)
Donner-Rollig
H. Donner & W. Rollig, Kanaaniiische und aramiiische Inschriften, vol. I

(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966)
Dorival-Harl-Munnich, Septante
G. Dorival, M. Harl, & 0. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du
judaisme hellenistique au christian is me ancien (Paris: Cerf I C.N .R.S., 1988)
G.R. Driver, "Glosses"
G.R. Driver, "Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament," L'Ancien
Testament et /'Orient (Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 1; Louvain:
University Publications, 1957) 123-61
S.R. Driver, Introduction
S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (5th ed.;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1898; New York: Meridian Books, 1956)
xxxvi
-,Samuel
-, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, with
an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions (2nd ed.;
Duhm, ]esaja
B. Duhm, Das Buch ]esaja (HAT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1902)
Eichhorn, Einleitung
J.G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Weidmanns, 17801783; 2nd ed.: Leipzig: Weidmanns, 1787 and Reutlingen: Grozinger, 1790;
3'd ed.: Leipzig: Weidmanns, 1803; 4th ed.: Gottingen: Rosenbusch, 1823)
Eissfeldt, Introduction
0. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, An Introduction, Including the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran: The History
of the Formation of the Old Testament (trans. P.R. Ackroyd; Oxford:
Blackwell, 1965)
Elias Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth
Elias Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth (Venice: D. Bomberg, 1538; ed. C.D.
Ginsburg: London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1867; repr. New
York: Ktav, 1968)
Epp, Perspectives
E.J. Epp, Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays
1962-2004 (NovTSup 116; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005)
Eshel, "4QDeutn"
E. Eshel, "4QDeutn: A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing,"
HUCA 62 (1991) 117-54
Essays in Honor ofW.F. Albright
The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of William Foxwell
Albright (ed. G.E. Wright; Anchor Books; Garden City, NY: Doubleday and
Company, 1965)
Field, Hexapla
F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum
graecorum in tatum Vetus Testamentumfragmenta (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875)
Fischer, Text
A.A. Fischer, Der Text des Alten Testaments: Neubearbeitung der Einfohrung
in die Biblia Hebraica von Ernst Wurthwein (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009)
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation
M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation m Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon,
1985)
-, Sha 'arei Talman
'Sha 'arei Talman': Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East
Presented to Shemaryahu Talman (ed. M. Fishbane et al.; Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1992)
Fitzmyer, Dead Sea Scrolls
J.A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study,
Revised Edition (SBLRBS 20; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990)
xxxvii
Flint-VanderKam, DSS
The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, vols. 1-2
(ed. P.W. Flint & J.C. VanderKam; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1998, 1999)
Flores Florentino
Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of
Florentino Garda Martfnez (ed. A. Hilhorst et al.; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill,
2007)
Florilegium Lovaniense
Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour
of Florentino Garda Mart(nez (ed. H. Ausloos et al.; BETL 224; Leuven/
Paris/Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2008)
Fox, Esther
M.V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther (SBLMS 40; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1991)
Freedman-Mathews, Leviticus
D.N. Freedman & K.A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll
(11QpaleoLev) (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985)
Gaster, "Buch Josua"
M. Gaster, "Das Buch Josua in hebraisch-samaritanischer Rezension,"
ZDMG 62 (1908) 209-79, 494-549
Geiger, Urschrift
A. Geiger, Urschrift und iibersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhiingigkeit von der
innern Entwickelung des Judentums (2"ct ed.: Frankfurt a. Main: Madda, 1928
[Breslau: Heinauer, 1857])
Gentry, "Text"
P.J. Gentry, "The Text of the Old Testament," JETS 52 (2009) 19-45
Gesenius, Handworterbuch (HW)
W. Gesenius, Hebriiisch-Deutsches Handworterbuch uber die Schriften des
Alten Testaments (Leipzig: Vogel, 1810-1812)
-, Pent. Sam.
-, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate commentatio
philologico-critica (Halle: Bibliotheca Rengeriana, 1815)
-, Thesaurus
-, Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae hebraeae et chaldaeae Veteris
Testamenti, I-III (2"ct ed.; Leipzig: Vogel, 1829-1858)
Geseni us-Kautzsch
E. Kautzsch, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (2"ct ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910)
Ginsburg, Massorah
C.D. Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts, Alphabetically and
Lexically Arranged, vols. I-IV (London/Vienna: Brog, 1880-1905; repr.
Jerusalem: Makar, 1971)
-, Introduction
-, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible
(London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr. New York: Ktav, 1966)
Glassius, Phi/alogia
Salomon is Glassii Phi/alogia Sacra his temporibus accomodata ... II, 1, Critica
Sacra (ed. G.L. Bauer; Leipzig: Sumptibus Weygandianis, 1795)
xxxviii
Glatzer, "Aleppo Codex"

M. Glatzer, "The Aleppo Codex: Codicological and Paleographical
Aspects," Sefunot 4 Oerusalem: Machan Ben-Zvi, 1989) 167-276 (Heb. with
Eng. summ.)
-,Companion Volume
Companion Volume, Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings According to the Text
and Masorah of the Aleppo Codex and Related Manuscripts, Following the
Methods of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer (ed. M. Glatzer; Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 2000)
Gooding, "Text and Mid rash"
D.W. Gooding, "Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of
Reigns," Textus 7 (1969) 1-29
-,Relics
-, Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies zn 3 Reigns 2
(SOTSMS 4; Cambridge: University Press; 1976)
Goodwin, Text-Restoration
D.W. Goodwin, Text-Restoration Methods in Contemporary U.S.A. Biblical
Scholarship (Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1969)
Cordis, Biblical Text
R. Cordis, The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere
(Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1937;
repr. New York: Ktav, 1971)
Goshen-Gottstein, "History"
M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, "The History of the Bible-Text and Comparative
Semi tics," VT 7 (1957) 195-201
-,Sample Edition
-, The Book of Isaiah: Sample Edition with Introduction (Jerusalem: Magnes,
1965)
-, "Biblical Manuscripts"
-, "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the
HUBP Edition," Bib 48 (1967) 243-90; repr. in Cross-Talman, QHBT, 42-89
-, Biblia Rabbinica
-, Introduction to Biblia Rabbinica: A Reprint of the 1525 Venice Edition
Edited by Jacob Ben Hayim Ibn Adoniya Oerusalem: Makar, 1972)
-, "Editions"
-, "Editions of the Hebrew Bible: Past and Future," in Fishbane, Sha 'arei
Talman (1992) 221-42
-,HUB, Isaiah
-, The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah Oerusalem: Magnes, 1995)
Goshen-Gottstein-Talmon, HUB, Ezekiel
- & S. Talman, The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 2004)
Gray, Hebrew Poetry
G.B. Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915;
repr. New York: Ktav, 1972)
Greenberg, "Stabilization"
M. Greenberg, "The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible
Reviewed in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert,"
]AOS 76 (1956) 157-67
-
xxxix
-, "Ancient Versions"
-, "The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text: A
Sampling from Ezechiel ii 1 - iii 11," in Congress Volume Gottingen 1977
(VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 131-48
Greenspoon-Munnich, VIII Congress
VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies (ed. L. Greenspoon & 0. Munnich; SBLSCS 41; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1992)
Grossman, Rediscovering
Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches
and Methods (ed. M.L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 2010)
Habermann, Ketav
A.M. Habermann, Ketav, Lashon Wa-Sefer: Reflections on Books, Dead Sea
Scrolls, Language and Folklore (Heb.; Jerusalem: R. Mas, 1973)
Hall, Companion
F.W. Hall, A Companion to Classical Texts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913; repr.
Chicago: Argonaut, 1970)
HALOT
L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament (trans. M.E.J. Richardson et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000), based
on earlier German editions: 1953; 2nd ed.: 1958; 3rd ed.: 1967-1996
Hatch-Redpath (= HR), Concordance
E. Hatch & H.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other
Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897-1906; repr.
Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1954; 2nd ed.: ed. R.A. Kraft
& E. Tov; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998)
Haupt, Critical Edition
A Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text, Printed in Colors, Exhibiting the
Composite Structure of the Book (ed. P. Haupt; Leipzig/Baltimore/London:
Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung/The Johns Hopkins Press/David Nutt,
1893-1904, incomplete)
-,Polychrome Bible
The Polychrome Bible: The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments: A New
English Translation, Printed in Colors, Exhibiting the Composite Structure of the
Book (ed. P. Haupt; London/New York/Stuttgart: Clark/Dodd, Mead,
1897-1899, incomplete)
Hayes, Introduction
J.H. Hayes, An Introduction to Old Testament Study (Nashville: Abingdon,
1979)
Hendel, Genesis 1-11
R.S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition
(New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)
-, "Samuel"
-,"Plural Texts and Literary Criticism: For Instance, 1 Samuel17," Textus
23 (2007) 97-114
-, "Prologue"
-, "The Oxford Hebrew Bible; Prologue to a New Critical Edition," VT 58
(2008) 324-51
xl
Historical Context
The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (ed. T.H. Lim et al.; London/
New York: T & T Clark, 2000)
Hognesius, The Text of2 Chronicles 1-16
K. Hognesius, The Text of 2 Chronicles 1-16: A Critical Edition with Textual
Commentary (ConBOT 51; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International,
2003)
Holladay, Jeremiah
W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah, vols. 1-2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia/Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1986, 1989)
HOTTP
Hebrew Old Testament Text Project-+ Barthelemy, Interim Report
Houbigant, Notae criticae
A.F. Houbigant, Notae criticae in universos Veteris Testamenti Iibras (Frankfurt: Varrentrapp Filium & Wenner, 1777)
Hugo, Elie
P. Hugo, Les deux visages d'Elie: Texte massoretique et Septante dans l'histoire
la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 17-18 (OBO 217; Fribourg/Gi:ittingen:
Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005)
-, "Le grec ancien"
-, "Le grec ancien des livres des Regnes: Une histoire et un bilan de la
recherche," in Safer Mahir (2006) 113-41
Hummel, "Enclitic Mem"
H.D. Hummel, "Enclitic Mem in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially
Hebrew," JBL 76 (1957) 85-107
Hutzli, Hanna
J. Hutzli, Die Erziihlung von Hanna und Samuel: textkritische und literarische
Analyse von 1. Samuel1-2 unter Beriicksichtigung des Kontextes (ATANT 89;
Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007)
-, "TexUinderungen"
-, "Theologische Textanderungen in Masoretischen Text und in der
Septuaginta von 1-2 Sam," in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel, 213-36
IDBSup
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1976)
Japhet, Chronicles
S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster /John Knox Press, 1993)
JB
The Jerusalem Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970)
Jellicoe, SMS
S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968)
Jepsen," Aufgaben"
A. Jepsen, "Von den Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Textkritik," VTSup 9
(1962) 332-41
Jobes, Esther
K.H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the
Masoretic Text (SBLDS 153; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996)
xli
Kahle, "Untersuchungen"
P. Kahle, "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes," TSK 88
(1915) 399-439; repr. in id., Opera Minora (Leiden: Brill, 1956) 3-37
-, Cairo Geniza
-,The Cairo Geniza (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1959)
Karrer-Kraus, Septuaginta
Die Septuaginta-Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung
veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006
(ed. M. Karrer & W. Kraus; WUNT 219; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008)
Kartveit, Samaritans
M. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2009)
Kasher, Script
M.M. Kasher, The Script of the Torah and Its Characters, II: Irregular Letters in
the Torah (Torah Shelemah 29; Heb.; Jerusalem: Bet Torah Shelemah, 1978)
Kennicott, Dissertation
B. Kennicott, The State of the Printed Text of the Old Testament Considered: A
Dissertation in Two Parts (Oxford: The Theatre, 1753-1759) = id., Dissertatio
secunda super ratione textus hebraici Veteris Testamenti (trans. G.A. Teller;
Leipzig: Dyck, 1765)
-, 1776-1780
-, Vetus Testamentum hebraicum, cum variis lectionibus, vols. I-II (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1776-1780)
-, Dissertatio generalis
-, ibid., appendix to val. II: Dissertatio generalis in Vetus Testamentum
Hebraicum, cum variis lectionibus ex codicibus manuscriptis et impressis. Also
published separately (Brunovici: Orphanotrophei, 1783)
van Keulen, Two Versions
P.S.F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative. An Inquiry into the
Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11 (VTSup 104;
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005)
KJV
"King James Version" (London: Robert Barker, 1611)
K.-R. Kim, Studies

K.-R. Kim, Studies in the Relationship between the Samaritan Pentateuch and
the Septuagint, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1994
Kittel, Notwendigkeit
R. Kittel, Uber die Notwendigkeit und Moglichkeit einer neuen Ausgabe der
hebriiischen Bibel: Studien und Erwiigungen (Leipzig: Edelmann, 1901)
Klein, Textual Criticism
R.W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after
Qumran (GBS, Old Testament Series 4; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974)
Koenig, "L'activite hermeneutique"
J. Koenig, "L'activite hermeneutique des scribes dans Ia transmission du
texte de !'Ancien Testament," RHR 161 (1962) 141-74; 162 (1962) 1-43
-, L'hermeneutique analogique
-, L'hermeneutique analogique du judai"sme antique d'apres les temoins textuels
d'Isai"e (VTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982)
xlii
Konig, Einleitung
E. Konig, Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit Einschluss der Apokryphen und
der Pseudepigraphen Alten Testaments (Bonn: Weber, 1893)
van der Kooij, Textzeugen
A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des fesajabuches, Ein Beitrag zur
Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO 35; Freiburg/Gottingen:
UniversWitsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981)
-, "Textual Criticism"
-, "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Its Aim and Method," in Paul,
Emanuel, 729-39
Kraus-Karrer, Septuagin ta
Die Septuaginta-Texte, Theologien, Einflusse: 2. Internationale Fachtagung
veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.-27.7 2008 (ed.
W. Kraus & M. Karrer; WUNT 252; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010)
Kreuzer, "Text"
S. Kreuzer, "Text, Textgeschichte und Textkritik des Alten Testaments:
Zum Stand der Forschung an der Wende des Jahrhunderts," TLZ 127
(2002) 127-56
-, "Textkritik"
-, "Textkritik," in id. et a!., Proseminar. Ein Arbeitsbuch. Bd. I: Altes Testament (2"d ed.; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2005) 26-48
Kugel, Biblical Poetry
J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New
Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1981)
Kutscher, Language
E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(1 Q Isa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974)
de Lagarde, Anmerkungen
P. de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Ubersetzung der Proverbien
(Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863)
Lamsa, Holy Bible
G.M. Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts Containing the
Old and New Testaments Translated from the Peshitta, The Authorized Bible of
the Church of the East (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1957)
Lange, From Qumran to Aleppo
From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual
History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65111 Birthday (ed. A. Lange et a!.;
FRLANT 230; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009)
-, "They Confirmed"
-,"'They Confirmed the Reading' (y. Ta'an. 4:68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period," in id., From
Qumran to Aleppo, 29-80
-, Handbuch
-, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, I: Die Handschriften biblischer
Bucher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2009)
xliii
-, "Plurality"
-, "The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple
Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Qumran and the Bible: Studying
the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. N.
David & A. Lange; CBET 57; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 43-96
Lemmelijn, Plagues Narrative
B. Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study of the So-called
'Plagues Narrative' in Exodus 7:14-11:10 (OTS 56; Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2009)
Lieberman, Hellenism
S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (2nd ed.; New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1962)
Logos
Logos computer program
Lundblom, Jeremiah
J.L. Lundblom, Jeremiah, 1-3 (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1999-2004)
Lust, Ezekiel
Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (ed.
J. Lust; BETL 74; Leuven: University Press, 1986)
-,Lexicon of the Septuagint
Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (ed. J. Lust et a!.; rev. ed.; Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003)
Luzzatto, Isaia
S.D. Luzzatto, II Profeta Isaia volgarizzato e commentato ad uso degl' Israeliti
(Padova: Antonio Bianchi, 1855; repr. Jerusalem: Academon, 1966)
Maas, Textual Criticism
P. Maas, Textual Criticism (trans. B. Flower; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958) =
Textkritik, in A. Gercke & E. Norden, Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft,
I, VII (3'd ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1957)
Macuch, Grammatik
R. Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebraisch (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1969)
Madrid Qumran Congress
The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Madrid, 18-21 March, 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera & L.
Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden/Madrid: Brill, 1992)
Margolis, "Scope"
M.L. Margolis, "The Scope and Methodology of Biblical Philology," JQR 1
(1910-1911) 5-41
Martin, Scribal Character
M. Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1-11 (Bibliotheque du
Museon 44; Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1958)
Massoreth ha-Massoreth
...... Elias Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth
Mazor, "Origin"
L. Mazor, "The Origin and Evolution of the Curse upon the Rebuilder of
Jericho: A Contribution of Textual Criticism to Biblical Historiography,"
Textus 14 (1988) 1-26
xliv
-, Septuagint
-, The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua: Its Contribution to the
Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and
Ideological Development, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1994
(Heb. with Eng. summ.; summary also in BIOSCS 27 [1994] 29-38)
-, "Nomistic"
-, "A Nomistic Re-Working of the Jericho Conquest Narrative Reflected
in LXX to Joshua 6:1-20," Textus 18 (1995) 47-62
McCarter, I Samuel, II Samuel
P.K. McCarter, I Samuel, II Samuel (AB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1980, 1984)
-,Textual Criticism
-, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (GBS, Old
Testament Series 11; Philadelphia: Fortress; 1986)
McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim
C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the
Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (OBO 36; Freiburg/Gottingen:
University Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981)
McKane, Jeremiah
W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, vols. I-II
(ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986, 1996)
van der Meer, Formation
M.N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of
Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses (VTSup 102; Leiden/
Boston: Brill, 2004)
Melanges Barthelemy
Melanges Dominique Barthelemy, Etudes bibliques offertes a!'occasion de son 60e
anniversaire (ed. P. Casetti et al.; OBO 38; Fribourg I Gottingen: Editions
Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981)
Mikra
Mikra computer program, Bar-Han University
Morinus, Exerc.
J. Morinus, Exercitationum biblicarum de hebraei graecique textus sinceritate
libri duo (Paris, 1633; 2nd ed.: G. Meturas, 1660)
Moshkowitz-1-:lamiel, Introduction
Y.Z. Moshkowitz & H. 1-:lamiel, Introduction to the Study of the Bible, I (Heb.;
Ramat Gan: Bar-Han University, 1987)
Mulder, Mikra
Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in
Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M.J. Mulder; CRINT, Section
Two, vol. 1; Assen-Maastricht/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1988)
NAB
New American Bible (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1970)
Naveh, Early History
J. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic
Epigraphy and Palaeography (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987)
NBV
Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (Heerenveen: Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap, 2004)
xlv
NEB
The New English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford/Cambridge: Oxford
University Press/Cambridge University Press, 1970)
NETS
A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations
Traditionally Included Under That Title (ed. A. Pietersma & B.G. Wright;
NIV
The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978)
NJPS
l"Jn, The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the
Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia/New York/Jerusalem: Jewish
Publication Society, 1988; 2"d ed., 1999) ..... p. xxi
NLT
New Living Translation (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996)
Noth, Old Testament World
M. Noth, The Old Testament World (trans. V.I. Gruhn; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1966)
NRSV
The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments with the
Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Version (Glasgow I
London: Collins, 1989)
Nyberg, "Problem"
H.S. Nyberg, "Das textkritische Problem des Alten Testaments am Hoseabuche demonstriert," ZAW 52 (1934) 241-54
Oesch, Petucha
J.M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer uberlieferten
Gliederung im hebriiischen Text des Alten Testaments (OBO 27; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979)
-, "Skizze"
-, "Skizze einer synchronen und diachronen Gliederungskritik im
Rahmen der alttestamentlichen Textkritik," in Pericope I, Delimitation
Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (ed. M.C.A. Karpel & J.M.
Oesch; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2ooo) 197-229
Ofer, "Preparation"
Y. Ofer, "The Preparation of the Jerusalem Crown Edition of the Bible Text,"
HS 44 (2003) 87-117 = Leshonenu 64 (2001-2002) 181-206 (Heb.)
O'Flaherty, Critical Study
The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (ed. W.O. O'Flaherty; Berkeley Religious
Studies 2; Berkeley, CA: Graduate Theological Union, 1979)
Okhlah we-Okhlah
Sefer Oklah we-Oklah (ed. F. Dfaz Esteban; Madrid: CSIC, 1975)
Olofsson, Essays
S. Olofsson, Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays
on the Septuagint Version (ConBOT 57; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2009)
Olshausen, Psalmen
J. Olshausen, Die Psalmen (KeH; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1853)
xlvi
Owen, Critica Sacra

H. Owen, Critica Sacra, Or a Short Introduction to Hebrew Criticism (London:
Bowyer & Nichols, 1774)
Paul, Emanuel
Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of
Emanuel Tov (ed. S.M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003)
Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism"
D.F. Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism: Its Principles and Practice
Apropos of Recent English Versions," TynBul25 (1974) 99-112
Penkower, Jacob Ben-I-;layyim
J.S. Penkower, Jacob Ben-I-;layyim and the Rise of the Biblia Rabbinica, Ph.D.
diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1982 (Heb. with Eng. summ.)
-, "Pentateuchal MS"
-, "A Tenth-Century Pentateuchal MS from Jerusalem (MS C3), Corrected
by Mishael Ben Uzziel," Tarbiz 58 (1988) 49-74 (Heb. with Eng. summ.)
-, New Evidence
-, New Evidence for the Pentateuch Text in the Aleppo Codex (Heb.; Ramat
Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1992)
-, "Ben-Asher"
-, "Ben-Asher, Aaron ben Moses," Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed.
J.H. Hayes; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999) 1.117-19
Pentateuch as Torah
The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and
Acceptance (ed. G.N. Knoppers & B.M. Levinson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007)
Pericope IV
Pericope IV: Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic
Literature (ed. M.C.A. Korpel & J.M. Oesch; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003)
Perles, Analekten
F. Perles, Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments, vol. I (Munich:
Ackermann, 1895); vol. II (Leipzig: Engel, 1922)
Pisano, Additions or Omissions
S. Pisano, S.J., Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant
Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO 57;
Freiburg/ Gi:ittingen: University Press, 1984)
Peters, XII Congress
XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies (ed. M.K.H. Peters; SBLSCS 54; Atlanta: SBL, 2006)
Prijs, ]udische Tradition
L. Prijs, ]udische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948; repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1987)
Qimron, DSS
E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1986)
Quest for Context and Meaning
The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Intertextuality in Honor of James
A. Sanders (ed. C.A. Evans & S. Talmon; Leiden/New York/Cologne: Brill,
1997)
xlvii
Rabin, mbqrym
C. Rabin, mbqrym bktr 'rm ?Wbh (Publications of the HUBP 1; Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1960)
Rabin-Talmon-Tov, HUB, Jeremiah
-, S. Talman, & E. Tov, The Hebrew University Bible, The Book of Jeremiah
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997)
Rahlfs, Septuaginta
A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes
(Stuttgart: Wiirttemberger Bibelanstalt, 1935)
Rahlfs-Hanhart, Septuaginta
Septuaginta, etc. (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006)
RBI
Rabbinic Bible (Miqra 'ot Gedolot), 1st ed. (1516-1517) ..... p. xxii
RB2
Rabbinic Bible (Miqra 'ot Gedolot), 2nd ed. (1524-1525) ..... p. xxii
Reading the Present

Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary.
by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (ed. K. De Troyer & A. Lange;
SBLSymS 30; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005)
REB
The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford/Cambridge: Oxford
University Press/Cambridge University Press, 1989)
Reynolds-Wilson, Scribes & Scholars
L.D. Reynolds & N.C. Wilson, Scribes & Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (3'd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1991)
Roberts, OTTV
B.J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Text in
Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions (Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 1951)
-, "Hebrew Bible"
-, "The Hebrew Bible since 1937," JTS NS 15 (1964) 253-64, repr. in The
Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader (ed. S.Z.
Leiman; New York: Ktav, 1974) 821-32
Rofe, "Nomistic Correction"
A. Rofe, "The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its
Occurrence in 4QSama," RevQ 14 (1989) 247-54
-, "Historical Significance"
-, "The Historical Significance of Secondary Readings," in Quest for
Context and Meaning (1997) 393-402
-, Rofe, "4QMidrash Samuel?"
A. Rofe, "4QMidrash Samuel?: Observations Concerning the Character of
4QSam 3 ," Textus 19 (1998) 63-74
-,Deuteronomy
-,Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation (London: T & T Clark, 2002)
-, "Midrashic Traits"
-, "Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (So-called 4QSam 3 )," in Archaeology of the
Books of Samuel (2010) 75-88
xlviii
Rosenmtiller, Handbuch
E.F.C. Rosenmtiller, Handbuch for die Literatur der biblischen Kritik und
Exegese, vol. I (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1797)
de Rossi, 1784-1788
J.B. de Rossi, Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti, vols. I-IV (Parma: Regio,
1784-1788; repr. Amsterdam: Philo, 1969)
RSV
The Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Revised Standard Version
(2nd ed.; New York: Collins, 1971)
Rudolph, Jeremia
W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 12; 2nd ed.; Ttibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958)
Saley, "4QJerb"
R.J. Saley, "Reconstructing 4QJerb According to the Text of the Old
Greek," DSD 17 (2010) 1-12
Salvesen, Hexapla
Origen 's Hexapla and Fragments: Papers Presented at the Rich Seminar on the
Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, 25 1h fuly-3'd August
1994 (ed. A. Salvesen; Ttibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998)
Sanders, "HUB and BHQ"
J.A. Sanders, "The Hebrew University Bible and Biblia Hebraica Quinta," JBL
118 (1999) 518-26
Sanderson, Exodus Scroll
J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the
Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986)
Schenker, Septante
A. Schenker, Septante et texte Massoretique dans l'histoire Ia plus ancienne du
texte de 1 Rois 2-14 (CahRB 48; Paris, 2000)
-,Earliest Text
-,The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic
Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker;
SBLSCS 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003)
-,"General Introduction"
-, Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. A. Schenker; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004- ), Part 18: General Introduction and Megilloth (ed. P. B. Dirksen
et al., 2004) VII-XXXVI
-, "Multiplicite"
-, "Est-ce que Ie livre de Jeremie fut publie dans une edition refondue au
2e siecle? La multiplicite textuelle peut-elle coexister avec !'edition unique
d'un livre biblique?," in Un carrefour dans l'histoire de Ia Bible: Du texte a Ia
theologie au lie siecle avant f.-C. (ed. I. Himbaza & A. Schenker; OBO 233;
Fribourg/Gottingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 5874
-, "Ursprung"
-, "Der Ursprung des massoretischen Textes im Licht der literarischen
Varianten im Bibeltext," Textus 23 (2007) 51-67
Schiffman, DSS
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the
jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (ed. L.H. Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem:
IES & The Shrine of the Book, 2000)
xlix
Schorch, "Korrekturen"
S. Schorch, "Die (sogenannten) anti-polytheistischen Korrekturen im
samaritanischen Pentateuch," Mitteilungen und Beitrage, Forschungsstelle
Judentum, Theologische Fakultat Leipzig 15 I 16 (Leipzig: Thomas, 1999) 4-21
-, Euphemismen
-, Euphemismen in der Hebriiischen Bibel (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 12;
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000)
-, Vokale
-, Die Vokale des Gesetzes: Die samaritanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der
Tora, 1. Das Buch Genesis (BZAW 339; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2004)
-,"LXX"
-, "The Septuagint and the Vocalization of the Torah," in Peters, XII

Congress (2006) 41-54
Scr. Prac . ...... Tov, Scr. Prac.
Scribes and Scrolls
Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism,
and Christian Origins Presented to J. Strugnell (ed. H.W. Attridge et al.;
College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5; Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1990)
Scrolls and Cognate Writings
Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International
Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (ed. G.J. Brooke & B. Lindars, S.S.F.;
SBLSCS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992)
Segal, mbw 'hmqr'
M.Z. Segal, mbw 'hmqr {Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1960)
Sellin-Fohrer, Einleitung
E. Sellin & G. Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (lOth ed.; Heidelberg:
Quelle & Meyer, 1965)
SESB
Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible computer program
Shenkel, Chronology
J.D. Shenkel, Chronology anq Recensional Development in the Greek Text of
Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968)
Safer Mahfr
Safer Mahir: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia
Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y.A.P. Goldman et al.; VTSup 110; Leiden/Boston:
Brill, 2006)
Sperber, Bible
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts,
vols. I-IV a (Leiden: Brill, 1959-1968)
-,Grammar
-, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: A Presentation of Problems with
Suggestions to Their Solution (Lei den: Brill, 1966)
Steck, Exegesis
O.H. Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology (trans. J. D.
Nogalski; SBLRBS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) = translation of the
13th edition of Barth-Steck, Exegese
Steuernagel, Einleitung
C. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem
Anhang Uber die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1912)
Stipp, "Textkritik"
H.J. Stipp, "Das Verhaltnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren
alttestamentlichen Veri:iffentlichungen," BZ NT 34 (1990) 16-37
Studies in Bible and Exegesis 1
Studies in Bible and Exegesis, Arie Toeg in Memoriam, vo!. 1 (ed. U. Simon &
M.H. Goshen-Gottstein; Heb.; Ramat Can: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1980)
Sundberg, Old Testament
A. Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church (HTS 20; Cambridge/
London: Harvard University Press, 1964)
Swete, Introduction
H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd ed.;
Cambridge: University Press, 1914)
Tal, Shekhem
A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch, Edited According toMS 6 (C) of the Shekhem
Synagogue (Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related
Subjects 8; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1994)
Tal-Florentin, Samaritan Version
A. Tal & M. Florentin, The Pentateuch. The Samaritan Version and the
Masoretic Version (Tel Aviv: Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010)
Talmon, "Old Testament Text"
S. Talmon, "The Old Testament Text," in The Cambridge History of the Bible
(ed. R.P. Ackroyd & C.F. Evans; Cambridge: University Press, 1970) 1.15999; repr. in Cross-Talmon, QHBT (1975) 1-41
-,Qumran
-, The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem/Leiden:
Magnes/Brill, 1989)
-, Masada VI
-, & Y. Yadin, Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965, Final
Reports, Hebrew Fragments from Masada (Jerusalem: IES, 1999)

-,Text
-, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2010)
-, "New Outlook"
-, ibid.,19-84
-, "Synonymous Readings"
-,ibid., 171-216
-, "Double Readings"
-,ibid., 217-67
-,"Ancient Versions"
-,ibid., 383-418
Talshir, "Double Translations"
Z. Talshir, "Double Translations in the Septuagint," in Cox, VI Congress,
21-63
li
Taylor, IX Congress
IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies (ed. B.A. Taylor; SBLSCS 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997)
-, X Congress
X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies: Oslo 1998 (ed. B.A. Taylor; SBLSCS 51; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
2001)
TCHB 2
The 2nd edition of the present monograph: Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis/ Assen: Fortress Press/Royal Van Gorcum,
2001)
Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship
H.St.J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (Schweich Lectures
1920; London: Milford, 1921)
The Bible as Book
The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed.
E.D. Herbert & E. Tov; London: British Library & Oak Knoll Press in
association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002)
Thenius (Lohr), BUcher Samuels
0. Thenius, Die BUcher Samuels erkliirt (ed. M. Lohr; KeH; 3'd ed.; Leipzig:
Hirzel, 1898)
Theory and Practice
Theory and Practice of Translation: Nobel Symposium 39, Stockholm 1976 (ed. L.
Grahs et al.; Bern: P. Lang, 1978)
Tigay, Models
Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J.H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1985)
-,Deuteronomy
J.H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1996)
Timpanaro, Genesis
S. Timpanaro, The Genesis of Lachmann 's Method (2nd ed.; trans. G.W. Most;
Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2005); translation of: La
genesi del metodo del Lachmann (2nd ed.; Padova: Liviana, 1981)
van der Toorn, Scribal Culture
K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
(Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2007)
Tov, Jeremiah-Baruch
E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an
Early Revision of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1976)
-,Samuel
The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, 1980 Proceedings IOSCS, Vienna (ed.
E. Tov; Jerusalem: Academon, 1980)
-,TCU
-, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (2nd ed.;
Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997)
Iii
-, Greek-Hebrew Bible
-, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72;
Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill, 1999)
-, "Place"
-, "The Place of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the
Hebrew Bible: The Relevance of Canon," in The Canon Debate (ed. L.
McDonald & J.A. Sanders; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002) 234-51
-,"Hannah"
-, "Different Editions of the Song of Hannah," in id., Greek-Hebrew Bible,
433-55
-, "Electronic Resources" 2003
-, "Electronic Resources Relevant to the Textual Criticism of Hebrew
Scripture," TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 8 (2003)
[http://purl.org /TC]
-, Scr. Prac.
-, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the fudean
Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004)
-, HB, GB, and Qumran
-, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ 121;
Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008)
-,"Textual Basis"
-, "The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew Bible: The
Argument against Eclecticism," ibid., 92-106
-, "Large-Scale Differences"
-,"The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT S
TV, Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources," ibid., 155-70
-, "Early Scrolls"
-, "The Writing of Early Scrolls: Implications for the Literary Analysis of
Hebrew Scripture," ibid., 206-20
-, "Electronic Resources" 2008
-,The Use of Computers in Biblical Research," ibid., 228-46
-, "Hebrew Scripture Editions"
-,"Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis," ibid., 247-70
-,"Textual Harmonizations"
-, "Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy," ibid.,
271-82
-, "Three Strange Books"
-, "Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel
Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and
Elsewhere," ibid., 283-305
-, "Deuteronomists"
-,"The Septuagint and the Deuteronomists," ibid., 398-417
-,"Coincidental Textual Nature"
-, "The Coincidental Textual Nature of the Collections of Ancient
Scriptures," Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill,
2010)153-69
liii
-,"Consistency"
-, "Some Reflections on Consistency in the Activity of Scribes and
Translators," in Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit. Herrschaft Widerstand - ldentitiit: Festschrift fiir Heinz-Josef Fabry (ed. U. Dahmen & J.
Schnocks; BBB 159; Gottingen: V&R unipress, 2010) 325-37
-,Revised Lists
-, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2010)
-, "Diffusion"
-, "Some Thoughts about the Diffusion of Biblical Manuscripts in
Antiquity," Transmission (2010) 151-72
-, "Post-Pentateuchal"
-, "Reflections on the Septuagint with Special Attention Paid to the PostPentateuchal Translations," in Kraus-Karrer, Septuaginta (2010) 3-22
-, "Aramaic"
-, "The Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin Translations of Hebrew Scripture visa-vis the Masoretic Text," in Eukarpa, hommage ii Gilles Dorival (ed. M.
Loubet & D. Pralon (Paris: Cerf, 2011) 173-85
-, "Literary Development"
-, "Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the
Masoretic Text, the LXX, and 4QJosha," forthcoming (2012)
Tov-Pfann, Companion Volume
E. Tov with the collaboration of S.J. Pfann, Companion Volume to The Dead
Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition (2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill I IDC, 1995)
Tradition of the Text
Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthelemy in Celebration of
His 70th Birthday (ed. G.J. Norton & S. Pisano; OBO 109; Freiburg/
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991)
Transmission
Transmission of Traditions and the Production of Texts (ed. S. Metso et al.;
STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010)
Trebolle Barrera, Biblia
J. Trebolle Barrera, La Biblia j.ud(a y la Biblia cristiana (Madrid: Trotta, 1993)
-,Jewish Bible
-, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of
the Bible (trans. W.G.E. Watson; Leiden/ Grand Rapids, MI: Brill/
Eerdmans, 1998)
Tur-Sinai, ktby hqds
N.H. Tur Sinai (Torczyner), b 'ylw drkym wb 'yzw mydh nwkl lhgy lnwsl.zm
hmqwry sl ktby hmqr' (Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, vol. 1.1; Jerusalem, 1964)
Ulrich, Josephus
E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1978)
-,"Joshua"
-, "4QJoshuaa and Joshua's First Altar in the Promised Land," in Brooke,
New Qumran Texts (1994) 89-104
liv
-,DSS
-, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids,
MI/Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1999)
-,"Developmental Composition"
-, "The Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah: Light from
1Qisa 3 on Additions in the MT," DSD 8 (2001) 288-305
-, "Qualitative Assessment"
-, "A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSam 3 ," in Flores
Florentino (2007) 147-61
-,BQS
-, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (VTSup
134; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010)
Van Seters, Edited Bible
J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the "Editor" in Biblical
Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006)
Volz, "Arbeitsplan"
P. Volz, "Ein Arbeitsplan fur die Textkritik des Alten Testaments," ZAW
54 (1936) 100-13
Walters, "Hannah and Anna"
S.D. Walters, "Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of I
Samuel1," JBL 107 (1988) 385-412
Walton, Polyglotta
B. Walton, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta complectentia textus originates, Hebraicum,
cum Pentateucho Samaritano, Chaldaicum, Graecum; versionumque antiquarum,
Samaritanae, Graecae LXXII Interpretum, Chaldaicae, Syriacae; Arabicae; Aethiopicae, Persicae, Vulg. Lat. etc. (London: Roycroft, 1653-57; repr. Graz, 1965)
-, Prolegomena
-, Polyglotta, Prolegomena ..... Wrangham, Prolegomena
Washburn, Catalog
D.L. Washburn, A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls (SBL
Text-Critical Studies 2; Atlanta: SBL, 2002; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003)
Wegner, Textual Criticism
P.O. Wegner, A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2006)
Weil, Massorah Gedolah ... Leningrad
G.E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah manuscrit B.19a de Leningrad, vol. I (Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1971)
Weingreen, Inttoduction
J. Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible
(Oxford/New York: Clarendon/Oxford University Press, 1982)
Weis, "Jeremiah"
R.D. Weis, "The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah," in Safer Mahir
(2006) 269-93
Wellhausen, Bucher Samuelis
J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bucher Samuelis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1871)
Westcott-Hort, NT
B.F. Westcott & F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, vols.
1-11 (2"d ed.; London/New York: Macmillan, 1896)
lv
Wisdom of the A11ciellfs

Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to H0110r Michael V.
Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. R.L. Troxel eta!.; Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005)
Wonneberger, Understanding BHS
R. Wonneberger, Understanding BHS: A Manual for the Users of Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia (trans. D.R. Daniels; SubBi 8; Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1984)
Worth, Biblical Studies
R.H. Worth, Jr., Biblical Studies on the lntemet: A Resource Guide Uefferson,
NC/London: McFarland, 2002)
van der Woude, "Piuriformity and Uniformity"
A.S. van der Woude, "Piuriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the
Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament," in Sacred History and
Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude
(ed. J.N. Brenner & F. Garda Martfnez; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992) 151-69
Wrangham, Prolegomena
F. Wrangham, Briani Waltoni S. T.P. in Biblia Polyglotta Prolegomena, vols. III (Cambridge: Joannes Smith, 1828)
Wi.irthwein, Text
E. Wi.irthwein, Der Text des A/ten Testaments: Eine Einfiihrung in die Biblia
Hebraica (5 111 ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1988)
-, Text (English)
-, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (2"d
ed.; trans. E.F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans, 1995)
Yeivin, Introduction
I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (trans. and ed. E.J. Revell;
SBLMasS 5; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980)
-,Masorah
-, The Biblical Masorah (Heb.; Studies in Language III; Jerusalem:
Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003)
Yelin, hdqdwq
.
Y.Y. Yelin, hdqdwq kyswd bhlkh (Heb.; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1973)
Young, "Suffix -H"
I. Young, "Observations on the Third Person Masculine Singular
Pronominal Suffix -H in Hebrew Biblical Texts," HS 42 (2001) 225-42
-, "Stabilization"
-, "The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and
Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?" DSD 9
(2002) 364-90
Zahn, "Rewritten Scripture"
M.M. Zahn, "Rewritten Scripture," The Oxford Handbook of filL' Dead Sea
Scrolls (ed. T.H. Lim & J.J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)
323-36
Zimmerli, Ezechiel
W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BK XIII; Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969)
-,Ezekiel
-,Ezekiel, vols. 1, 2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979, 1983)
SYSTEM OF TRANSLITERATION
jj
b
b
g
d
h
w
h
.t
y
k
k
m
n
s
p
p
?
q
r
s
t
Traditional spelling is used for some proper nouns, e.g. "Moses,"

rather than Moshe, and for a few other words, e.g. soferim, rather than
sopherim or sofrim.
BRIEF DIDACTIC GUIDE

This handbook to the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible follows its
internal logic in introducing the textual sources, the transmission of the
Hebrew text, and the techniques used in analyzing these data. It is not
written in a didactic way with a gradually increasing level of difficulty.
For example, the discussion could have started with a comparison of the
Judean Desert scrolls (ch. 2Ic) with the consonantal base (letters) of the
Masoretic Text (MT = m), which could have made the analysis more
attractive to the beginning student. Such a comparison could have
focused on both scrolls that are identical tom and those that differ from
that text in different ways. However, the disadvantage of such an
approach is that the student would be unaware of the nature of the two
entities that are being compared. The nature of details, whether identical
to or different from each other, is less meaningful when they are
detached from the totality of the analysis. On the other hand, a broad
picture as presented here provides the student of the biblical text with
insights on all the texts. In order for such a comparison to be meaningful,
we first have to explore the nature of m, the source known best to the
readers of this book and to which all other texts are compared. Intrinsic
correctness of the presentation rather than attractiveness remains our
primary goal, especially since beginning and advanced students as well
as scholars will be among the readers of the book.
In view of the preceding remarks, the most appropriate approach
seems to us to start the discussion with m. However, once this road is
chosen, we recognize a number. of related problems since the discussion
of m involves an analysis of several complicated components: vocalization systems, accentuation, and para-textual elements, such as KetibQere and inverted nunim (pp. 39-65). This analysis even involves the
Masorah (pp. 65-70), which is an inseparable part of m. For some time, I
considered the possibility of dividing the analysis of m into two parts,
focusing firstly on the consonantal base that can be compared easily with
the Judean Desert scrolls and the ancient translations, and then
subsequently on the medieval components of m, such as the vocalization.
Upon second thought, a separation of the analysis of m into two layers
turned out to be impractical because its components are too interconnected. --+ p. 23
While many or most readers will choose to follow the sequence of the
chapters, others, possibly beginning students, will want to follow a
lviii
Brief Didactic Guide
different path that takes the level of complication into consideration. The
point of departure will be the reader's familiarity with m in Hebrew or
translation. A reader of this type is invited to start with samples of
textual diversity within m and between m and other sources and
subsequently to turn to the full description: 1
1. A comparison of inner-biblical parallels in m inch. 1, Tables 1-2. The text of
these tables, which can also be read in translation, introduces the notion that a
comparison of parallel texts within m leads to the practicing of textual criticism.
2. Ch. 2, Tables 1-2, 21-23 introduce differences between m and several
Qumran scrolls.
3. Ch. 2, Tables 10-13 introduce differences between m and the Samaritan
Pentateuch (lll ).
4. Ch. 2, Table 26 summarizes the major differences between m and the LXX
(11J ).
5. Ch. 4, Tables 7-8 introduce tendentious changes in m.
6. Ch. 7, Tables 1-7 illustrate major differences between m and other textual
sources.
7. Ch. 9, Table 3 introduces differences between modern commentaries due to
their different textual background.
Upon reading these tables, the reader is invited to start from the
beginning of the book, while leaving the following challenging sections
for a second serving: ch. 21A2-6 (intricacies of m), ch. 2Ic5 (Qumran
Scribal Practice), ch. 2Io (additional witnesses), ch. 3 (history of the
biblical text), ch. 4A-B (copying and transmitting the biblical text), ch. 6
(evaluation of readings), ch. 8 (conjectural emendation).
Readers who are not well versed in Hebrew may wish to leave certain tables aside, and
focus on groups of examples inch. 4C in which the sources are translated into English.
1
INTRODUCTION
"A man who possesses common sense and the use ofreason must not
expect to learn from treatises or lectures on textual criticism anything
that he could not, with leisure and industry, find out for himself.
What the lectures and treatises can do for him is to save him time and
trouble by presenting to him immediately considerations which
would in any case occur to him sooner or later." (A.E. Housman, "The
Application of Thought to Textual Criticism," Proceedings of the
Classical Association 18 [1922]67-84 [67]).
General Bibliography
Ap-Thomas, Primer; D. Barthelemy, "Text, Hebrew, History of," IDBSup, 878-84 = Etudes,
341-64; id., Critique textue/le 1982-2005; Brotzman, Textual Criticism; Cappellus, Critica Sacra
(1650); Deist, Text; id., Witnesses; Eichhorn, Einleitung; Eissfeldt, Introduction, 669-719;
Fischer, Text; Gentry, "Text"; D.C. Greetham, Textual Scholarship: An Introduction (New
York/London: Garland Publishing, 1992); Y. Grintz, mbw'y mqr' (Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1972);
Hendel, Genesis 1-11; Klein, Textual Criticism; van der Kooij, Textzeugen; McCarter, Textual
Criticism; Kreuzer, "Text"; id., "Textkritik"; Mulder, Mikra; Noth, Old Testament World, 30163; S. Pisano, S.J., Introduzione a/la critica testuale dell' Antico e del Nuovo Testamento (5'h ed.;
Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2008); Reynolds-Wilson, Scribes & Scholars, 207-41;
Roberts, OTTV; M.Z. Segal, mbw hmqr , IV.842-977; Steuernagel, Einleitung, 19-85; Talmon,
"Old Testament Text"; J.A. Thompson, "Textual Criticism, Old Testament," IDBSup, 88691; Trebolle, Biblia; Wegner, Textual Criticism; Weingreen, Introduction; Wiirthwein, Text; id.,
Text (English).
toors: ..... ch. 10 and the textuai sources described in chapters 2, 4, 8, 9
Textual criticism 1 deals with the nature and origin of all the witnesses of
a composition or text, in our case the biblical books. This analysis often
involves an attempt to discover the original form of details in a
composition, or even of large stretches of text, although what exactly
constitutes (an) "original text(s)" is subject to much debate. -+ ch. 3B. In
the course of this inquiry, attempts are made to describe how the texts
were written, changed, and transmitted from one generation to the next.
Those scholars who express a
on the originality of readings do so
while evaluating their comparative value. This comparison-the central
area of the textual praxis-refers to the value of the readings+ (variants+)
Gesenius, Handworterbucll, XXII (1810-1812) uses the term Wortkritik (word criticism).
included in the textual witnesses. However, not all differences should be

subjected to a textual evaluation. In our view, (groups of) readings that
were produced at the literary growth stage of the biblical books (literary
or editorial variants) should not be subjected to textual evaluation, since
they were not produced during the course of the transmission of texts.
-+category II on p. 268. At the same time, the difficulty in recognizing
readings of this type complicates the textual evaluation to such an extent
that some scholars tend to avoid textual evaluation altogether. The
attentive reader will note that this definition does not refer specifically to
the traditional text of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, the so-called Masoretic
Text (MT = m), but rather to all forms of Scripture.
In principle, the aims of textual criticism should not have changed
with the discovery of important new evidence in the Judean Desert.
However, the amount and nature of the new evidence aids us in better
defining the cross-fertilization between textual criticism, exegesis, and
literary criticism.
One of the practical results of the analysis of textual data is that it
creates tools for the exegesis of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture. Exegetical
activity is based on a text or texts and can only proceed if the nature of
that text has been determined. By the same token, all other disciplines,
such as the historical, geographical, and linguistic analysis of Scripture,
operate from a text base. In each case, the scholar has to identify the text
base for the exegesis, and by necessity this involves the analysis of all
textual data. However, too often these disciplines are based mainly on m
because the extant text editions and commentaries focus on that version.
-+ pp. 364-5
The aims and procedures of textual criticism of Hebrew-Aramaic
Scripture are further defined in ch. SA. The remainder of the present
chapter deals with additional introductory issues, among them "text,
canon, and sacred status" and "subjectivity of this book" (sections D and
E). In section A, we attempt to demonstrate that involvement in textual
criticism is imperative, not only in a comparative analysis of the various
textual sources of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture (Al, 2) but also when we
consult the so-called Masoretic Text (A3, 4) alone.
A. The Need for Textual Criticism of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture
Several factors require the involvement of textual criticism within the

discipline of biblical studies. In view of the focus on the Masoretic Text+
by most scholars -+ pp. 364-5, such an examination remains relevant.
1. Differences among the Many Textual Witnesses
The biblical text has been transmitted in many ancient and medieval
sources that are known to us from modern editions in different
languages: We possess fragments of leather and papyrus scrolls that are
at least two thousand years old in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, as well
as manuscripts in Hebrew and other languages from the Middle Ages.
These sources shed light on and witness to the biblical text, hence their
name: "textual witnesses." All these textual witnesses differ from one
another to a greater or lesser extent. Since no textual source contains
what could be called the biblical text, a serious involvement in biblical
studies necessitates the study of all sources, which necessarily involves
study of the differences between them. The comparison and analysis of
these textual differences thus holds a central place within textual
criticism.
It is not only the differences among the various textual witnesses that
require involvement in textual criticism. Textual differences of a similar
nature are reflected in the various attestations of a single textual tradition
of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, namely m, often described as the main
textual tradition of Scripture. Such differences are visible in all
attestations of m, ancient and medieval, and even in its printed editions
and modern translations--+ j, 2 since they are based on different sources
(--+ pp. 70-74). We shall first turn to these editions (see pp. xx-xxii for
bibliographical references), as they are easily accessible.
Possibly, one would not have expected differences between the printed
editions of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, for if a fully unified textual tradition had
been possible at any one given period, it would certainly seem to have been after
the invention of printing. However, such is not the case since all printed editions
of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, which actually are editions of m, go back to
different medieval manuscripts of that tradition, or combinations thereof( ..... pp.
70-74), and therefore the editions also necessarily differ from one another.
Moreover, these editions reflect not only the various medieval manuscripts, but
also the personal views of the different editors. Furthermore, several editions
contain a certain number of printing errors. Therefore, there is no single edition
in existence that agrees in all its details with another one, except for
photographically reproduced editions or editions presenting the same electronic
2
See the following sample of modern renderings of

1:\::J' ':I i.!l in Gen 49:10:
1. "Until Shiloh come" (KJV)= m
2. "So long as tribute is brought to him" (NEB; similarly NJPS and NRSV) = 1?
(thus
the Midrash collections Ya/kut Shim'oni and Lekah Tov).
3. "Until he receives what is his due" (REB), "until he comes to whom it belongs" (RSV
and similarly /B), all based on a reading ii?()tq as in(!) s <r: 0 N. For a detailed discussion,
see Prijs, judische Tradition, 67-70. Additional examples are analyzed below, pp. 367-76.
(computer-encoded) text. Most editions even differ from one another in their
subsequent printings, without informing the readers. Note, for example, the
different printing errors in the various printings of the editions of Snaith and
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) mentioned below, and note the editorial
decisions in the Adi and Koren editions. 3 The BHS edition originally appeared in
fascicles that were corrected in the final printing, which carried the dates 19671977. It was corrected again in the 1984 printing, yet even this contains mistakes,
on which see below.
It should be remembered that the number of differences between the various
editions is very small. Moreover, all of them concern minimal, or even minute,
details in the text, and most affect the meaning of the text in only a very limited
way.
The following are examples of the differences bE'tween the most frequently
used editions of m.
a. Sequence of Books
The sequence of certain books differs in relation to the others in the
various editions. These books are Chronicles, the
books (acronymic
4
for Job, Proverbs, and Psalms), and the Five Scrolls. In most editions
(e.g. RB1-2+ [Miqra 'at cedolot], Letteris, Ginsburg, Sinai, Cassuto, Snaith,
Koren, Adi, BH, BHS), Chronicles appears as the last book of the
Hagiographa, while in Breuer's edition (1977-1982) it is the first book of
that collection, reflecting its position in codices A+ and L+. The internal
sequence of the
books differs in Breuer 1977-1982, BH, BHS
(Psalms, Job, Proverbs [thus b. B. Bat. 14b]) from that of RB1-2+, Letteris,
Ginsburg, Sinai, Cassuto, Snaith, Koren, Adi (Psalms, Proverbs, Job). For
the Five Scrolls, one finds the following arrangements: Ruth, Canticles,
Qoheleth, Lamentations, Esther (Breuer 1977-1982, BH, BHS); Canticles,
Ruth, Lamentations, Qoheleth, Esther (some printings of RB1-2+, Letteris,
Ginsburg, Sinai, Cassuto, Snaith, Adi). In other printings of RB1-2+,
individual books of the Five Scrolls follow the books of the Torah.
b. Chapter Division
The chapters were determined at a late stage in the development of the

biblical text. - p. 49. Accordingly, the exact content of these chapters
differs sometimes among the various editions because, in an editor's
view, the last verse of a chapter seems to make more sense as the first
3
Thus the Hebrew Koren edition differs from its Hebrew-English edition in the
numbering of the verses in the transitions between Genesis 31 and 32 and Ezekiel 13
and 14. See below concerning other differences between the various printings of the Adi
and Koren editions.
On the differences between the manuscripts and editions in. this regard, see especially
N.M. Sarna, "Bible," Enc/ud Oerusalem: Keter, 1971) 4.827-30.
Chapter 1: In traduction
verse of the following chapter, or vice versa, and the verse numbering
reflects this understanding.
For example, the verse starting with the words "At that time, declares the
LORD, I will be ... "appears in some editions as the last verse of Jeremiah 30, 30:25
(e.g. Letteris, Sinai, Breuer, Koren 1962, Adi 1973-1976), and in other ones as the
first verse of ch. 31 (Cassuto, Snaith, BH, BHS). These two representations of the
biblical text are based on different understandings of the verse in its context.
"Certain elders of Israel came to me" forms the first verse of Ezekiel 14 in the
editions of Letteris, Sinai, Snaith, Koren 1962, Adi 1973-1976, Breuer 1977-1997,
BH, and BHS, but in the edition of Cassuto it appears as the last verse of ch. 13
(13:24), indicated by a closed section+ after this verse. Ginsburg's edition presents
it as the last verse of ch. 13, but names it 14:1.
Likewise, the verse beginning with the words "Early in the morning Laban
arose ... " appears as the last verse of Genesis 31 (31:55) in the Koren 1962
edition, but as the first verse of ch. 32 in the editions of Letteris, Sinai, Snaith, Adi
1973-1976, Breuer 1977-1997, BH, and BHS. 5
c. Layout of the Text
Since the layout of the text as either poetry or prose depends on the
editor's views, in this detail, too, the various editions differ from one
another.
The majority of the editions present the text of most biblical books as
prose with a few passages as poetry. The editions of Letteris (in most of
books (Job,
its printings) and Cassuto, however, present the
Proverbs, and Psalms) as poetry. --+ p. 61. Against this tradition, NJPS
1999 presents the poetry "with line breaks, in the manner of poetry in
more recent centuries" (p. xiv). BH tends to present texts as poetry more
than the other editions, including BHS. See, for example, the song of
Lamech (Gen 4:23-24) and the words of God to Rebekah (Gen 25:23).
Ginsburg and BHS, as opposed to the other editions, present the priestly
blessing in Num 6:23-26 as poetry.
The presentation of the text as either prose or poetry reflects exegesis,
for example in the analysis of Jeremiah (cf. the prophecies that appear in
prose in most editions of ch. 7, as opposed to those in v 29 of that chapter
and the surrounding chapters, which are all presented as poetry, in BH
and BHS).
5
For additional examples of problematic chapter divisions, see P. Finfer, Massoret HaTorah Ve-ha-Nebi'im (Vilna: Graber, 1906; repr. [Tel Aviv?], 1970) 45-83; J.S. Penkower,
"Verse Divisions in the Hebrew Bible," VT 50 (2000) 378-93 (388-93).
d. Verse Division
The scope of the verses sometimes differs from one edition to another.
For example, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, the sixth, seventh,
eighth, and ninth commandments are recorded in some editions as one
verse (Exod 20:12 or 13; Deut 5:17), but in other editions as four different
verses (Exod 20:13-16; Deut 5:17-20). These discrepancies account for the
differences in verse numbering in these chapters among the various
editions. The editions of Letteris, Sinai, Snaith, BH, and BHS record these
four commandments in Exodus 20 as separate verses, while the editionsof Cassuto, Adi 1973-1976, Koren 1962, Md Breuer 1977-1997 present
them as one verse. Not every edition treats the Ten Commandments in
Deuteronomy 5 in the same way, but the picture is similar. In the
editions of Letteris, Sinai, Adi 1976, Koren 1962, and Breuer 1977-1997,
the sixth through ninth commandments are treated as one verse, but in
the editions of Cassuto, Snaith, BH, and BHS they are treated as four
different verses because of their special (upper) accentuation. In
Deuteronomy, the situation is even more complicated, since the second
commandment ("You shall have no other gods beside Me.") sometimes
starts a new verse, viz., 5:7 (in the editions of Sinai, Cassuto, Snaith,
Koren 1962, Adi 1976, Breuer 1977-1997, BH, and BHS), while in the Adi
1973 edition it appears as v 6b.6
e. Single Letters and Words
The number of differences in single letters is relatively small, with most

of them concerning small details, such as matres lectionis. - pp. 208-18.
For example:
Deut 23:2
Cassuto, Snaith, Adi 1973-1976, Breuer 19771997, BH, BHS

RB2, Koren 1962
A few differences, however, concern complete words, such as:

Prov 8:16
judges of the earth

Ginsburg, Koren 1977
righteous judges
Letteris, Cassuto, Adi 1973-1976, Koren 1962,
1979, Breuer 1977-1997, BH, BHS
On other aspects of the different writing traditions for the Decalogue, see M. Breuer,
"The Division of the Decalogue into Verses and Commandments," The Ten Commandments as Reflected in Tradition and Literature throughout the Ages (ed. B.-Z. Segal; Heb.;
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985) 223-54.
Cassuto, Snaith, Adi 1973-1976, Breuer
1977-1997, BHS
Letteris, Koren 1962
1 Sam 30:30
Gen 14:1
iOll'?i1:l
iOll'?-i1:l
RB2, Ginsburg 1926, Koren 1962, Adi 19731976, Breuer 1977-1997, BH, BHS
Ginsburg 1926-, Letteris
A full list of such differences relating to the Koren edition is appended to

the edition.
f. Vocalization and Accentuation
The relatively numerous differences in vocalization (vowel signs) and

accents+ usually do not affect the meaning of the text. Most of the differences in this group pertain to the ga 'yah (secondary stress).-+ pp. 62-5
The following is an example of one that does alter the meaning.
Jer 11:2
t:ll)i:::l1,
t:lt;\i:::l1,
and you (plural) shall say

Letteris, Sinai, Snaith, Koren 1962, Breuer
1977-1997, HUB
and you (singular) shall recite them
Adi 1973-1976, BH, BHS
g. Notes of the Masorah

The modern Scripture editions include from the Masorah+ mainly the
Qere+ and Sebirin+ notes and the notation of sections in the text as either
open+ or closed+. The editions differ from one another in all these details.
For example, Ginsburg, Introduction, 9-24 criticizes the imprecise
notations of the sections in the earlier edition of Baer-Delitzsch.-+ p. 73
h. Different Editions Based on the Sqme Manuscript
Since the manuscripts of m were handwritten, and therefore sometimes

difficult to decipher, it is not surprising that they are sometimes read in
different ways by the editors of modern Scripture editions. Five different
editions (which actually represent only two editions) of the important
codex Leningrad B19A (L), BH and its revised versions, BHS and BHQ,
-+ ch. 9B, as well as the Adi edition {1973) and Dotan 2001, each claim that
they faithfully present this codex. However, these editions differ from
one another in many details, partly as a result of the difficulties in
deciphering details (especially vowels and accents) and partly due to
different editorial perspectives (see the introductions to the last two
editions mentioned). Furthermore, some of these editions contain
printing errors.
j. Differences Due to Printing Errors

Printing errors are found in both earlier and later editions. The very first
editions preceding RBI and RB2 contain many mistakes involving the
omission or duplication of words or entire verses? ..... p. 71. However,
later editions also contain multiple mistakes. 8 For example, in the Snaith
edition (London, 1958) one finds:
Exod 10:3
'm
which should read:
no
Esth 7:7
;.!.)
'?S:J instead of:
Esth 7:8
instead of:
Esth 8:5
instead of:
Many of the printing errors found in the early printings of BH (e.g.

1949) were corrected in BHS-for example, Isa 35:1
(which
should read
some misprints and inaccuracies remain even
in the 1984 printing of BHS (1967-1977). 10 For example,
Gen 35:27
2 Sam 14:30 Q
Dan 11:8
]1i:lij which should read:

]1i:l!J
instead of:
instead of:
These small but material differences between the modern editions of

m, as well as the various printing errors and many additional factors,
necessitate the involvement of textual criticism. When examining the
origin of the differences between the various modern editions of m, we
soon discover that most of them go back to differences between the
medieval manuscripts on which they are based. Indeed, the analysis in
ch. 2 shows that medieval manuscripts and scrolls from the Second
Temple period differ in numerous details, ranging from single letters and
whole words to entire verses. Medieval Masoretic manuscripts differ in
7
See J.G. Bidermannus, Programma de mendis librorum et nominatim bibliorum hebraicorum

diligentius cavendis (Freiburg: Matthaeanis, 1752); Kennicott, Dissertation (1753), Part the
Second, 620-21 (lists the mistakes of the Naples 1487 edition); Ginsburg, Introduction,
779-976 (extensive review of the mistakes in all early editions).
8 For example, see Cohen-Freedman, "Snaith."
9 See I. Yeivin, "The New Edition of the Biblia Hebraica: Its Text and Massorah," Textus 7
(1969) 114-23. Dotan 2001, X(-+ p. xxi) discusses such mistakes in BH and BHS.
10 Cf. Wonneberger, Understanding BHS, 74-5. All these errors have been corrected in
subsequent printings of BHS.
these details as well as in vocalization, accentuation, and details of the

Masorah+ (Ketib-Qere+ readings and section divisions+).
The differences between the various textual witnesses, some of which
involve details in content, are exemplified in ch. 4c.
2. Mistakes, Corrections, and Changes in the Texts, Including m
Most texts-ancient and modern-that are transmitted from one

generation to the next get corrupted in one way or another. For modern
compositions, the process of textual transmission from the writing of the
autographs+ until their final printing is relatively short, thus limiting the
possibilities of them becoming corrupted.l 1 In ancient texts, however,
such as Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, these corruptions (the technical term
for various forms of "mistakes") were more frequent as a result of the
complexities of the writing on papyrus and leather and the length of the
transmission process, conditions that prevailed until the advent of
printing. The number of factors that could have created corruptions is
large: the transition from the early Hebrew+ to the square script+, unclear
handwriting, unevenness in the surface of the leather or papyrus,
graphically similar letters which were often confused, the lack of
vocalization+, unclear boundaries between words in early texts leading to
wrong word divisions+, scribal corrections not understood by the next
generation of scribes, etc.
Corruptions as well as various forms of scribal intervention (changes,
corrections, etc.) are evidenced in all textual witnesses of HebrewAramaic Scripture, including the group of texts now called the medieval
Masoretic Text as well as in its predecessors, the proto-Masoretic+ (also
named proto-rabbinic) texts. 12 Those who are unaware of the details of
textual criticism may think that one should not expect corruptions in m,
or any other sacred text, since these texts were meticulously written and
transmitted. The scrupulous approach of the soferim and Masoretes is
indeed manifest in some of their techniques. They even counted all the
letters and words of m. - p. 66. Therefore, one would not expect
corruptions to have been inserted into the text through their work, or
11
However, note the many mistakes that were inserted into all the editions of Ulysses by
James Joyce as a result of misunderstandings of the author's corrections in the proof
sheets of his book. These mistakes were corrected in a critical edition at a relatively late
stage: james joyce, Ulysses: Student's Edition, The Corrected Text (ed. H.W. Gabler et a!.;
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986).
12 Tradition ascribes 8, 11, or 18 such "corrections"+ in m to the soferim ("Scribes")- pp.
59-61, but since these transmitted corrections are questionable, it should be
remembered that many similar ones are evidenced elsewhere.- pp. 242-56
10
corrections to have been made. Yet, in spite of their precision, even the
manuscripts that were written and vocalized by the Masoretes contain
corruptions, changes, and erasures. More importantly, the Masoretes,
and before them the soferim, made their contribution at a relatively late
stage in the development of the biblical text; at that time the text already
contained corruptions and had been tampered with before the scribes
began to treat it with such reverence and before they put their meticulous
principles into practice. Therefore, paradoxically, the soferim and
Masoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted. The
discussion in the following chapters will expand on the subject of these
corruptions that occurred in all manuscripts of the Hebrew-Aramaic
Bible, including the manuscripts of m.
It is not easy to provide convincing proof of errors in m, but we
believe that some of the examples in 4 provide partial proof. As was
already recognized in the Middle Ages by R. David Kimhi (RaDaK), two
pairs of similar letters (daleth I resh and waw I yod) were sometimes
interchanged by mistake. - p. 13. As a result, in such situations there is
no escape from the view that often one of any two similar readings,
occurring in parallel texts, is "correct" or "original"+ and the other a
corruption. This assumption pertains, for example, to such pairs of
readings as
I
and ?::J1ll
ll. - Table 1
The assumption of corruptions in the biblical text pervades many of
the examples in this book. Such corruptions are found in Qumran scrolls
when compared with m and other texts, 13 and likewise in m when
compared with other texts. 14 In all these cases, the comparison of m and
the Qumran texts is based on objective textual data and recognized
scribal phenomena.
Other corruptions in m are evident not through the comparison of
different manuscripts, but through the occurrence of problematical
details.
1 Sam 13:1
NRSV
"rliD1 ,::l.,r:l::J .,,NiD

1:J (= D;- a:) literally:
Saul was one year old when he began to reign; and he reigned
two years over Israel.
Saul was ... years old when he began to reign; and he
reigned ... and two years over Israel.
'-,l!t1iD' '-,l) 1'-,r:l
The problematical aspects of this unusual text are indicated in the NRSV 15 by
dots to which the following footnotes are added for the first and the second
13 E.g. 1Qisaa in Isa 13:19 ..... p. 233; 26:3-4 ..... p. 222; 30:30-> p. 224; 40:7-8 ..... pp. 223--4.
14 E.g. 1 Sam 1:24 ..... p. 236; 4:21-22 ..... p. 226; 2 Sam 23:31 ..... p. 233; 2 Kgs 11:13 ..... p. 226; Jer
23:33 ..... p. 276; 29:26 ..... p. 238; 41:9-> p. 276.
15 NJPS and McCarter, I Samuel, 222 use the same technique.
11
instance respectively: "The number is lacking in the Heb text"; "Two is not the
entire number; something has dropped out." As a result of these mistakes, a
literal understanding or translation of m yields a very difficult meaning. We are
thus left with the assumption that the received text contains a textual error and
that the earlier (correct?) text probably mentioned realistic numbers for Saul's age
at the beginning of his reign, such as 30 years in d3Luc (b-mg oe2) (accepted by the
REB), 21 years in 5, or 50 years suggested by the NEB.
The following are two additional examples of such mistakes.

Judg 16:2
m
(\j
;,m ]1tDr:liD M:::l ,r:lM';i C'ml'';i

To the Gazites as follows: "Samson has come here"
KOL GVTJYYEAT] (MS B: GTTTJYYEAT]) nile; ra(ao'ic; AEYOVTEC:
The Gazites were told as follows (= ([; .. D 5)
The only reading that is understandable is that of l\3 and the other versions, which
was followed by the NRSV ("The Gazites were told") and NJPS ("The Gazites
[learned] that. .. "). Both modern translations reflect the verb in l\3.
Jer 27:1
m
NJPS
;"l'r:l,' ';ill(
m;,
,:::11;, ;"1';"1 ;"111;"1' 1';ir:l 1;"1'iD1M' ]:::l t:lp,1i1, n:;)';ir:lr:l n'iDM,:::l

,r:lM';i ';, nMr:l (= D ([)
At the beginning of the reign of king fehoiakim son of Josiah

of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD.
This verse serves as the heading of ch. 27, which speaks of actions taking place in
the time of Zedekiah. -+ vv 3, 12; 28:1. Therefore, the mentioning of Jehoiakim in
the heading does not suit the contents of the chapter and it probably erroneously
repeats the first verse of the previous chapter, 26. The heading of ch. 27 was
probably added in the forerunner of most textual witnesses at a later stage in the
development of the book, while the earlier stage, in which it was lacking, is
represented by l\3 ...... p. 289.
(Zedekiah) of 5 (= NRSV) should probably be
understood as a contextual correction. 16
3.
mDoes Not Reflect the "Original Text" of the Biblical Books
One of the postulates of biblical research is that many details in the text
preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what
is commonly called the Masoretic Text, do not reflect the "original text"
of the biblical books. 17 Even though the concept of an "original text"
necessarily remains vague -+ ch. 3B, differences between m and the other
textual witnesses will continue to be recognized. Scholars will constantly
hesitate regarding the originality of the readings of either m or one of the
other sources. However, one thing is clear, it should not be postulated
that m better or more frequently reflects the original text of the biblical
16 As a conclusion to this paragraph it is appropriate to quote the words of Kennicott,
Dissertation (1753), Part the First, 269: "And now, if there certainly are Errors in the
printed Text of the Old Testament, may we not be permitted to discover them?"
17 This perception goes back to Cappellus* (1650) 384-5. Also Eichhorn, Einleitung (4' 11 ed.,
1823) 1.278-83 described in detail why the "oldest manuscripts were not without
mistakes" (title of the section).
12
books than any other text. Furthermore, even were we to surmise that m
reflects the "original" form of Scripture, we would still have to decide
which form of m reflects this "original text," since m itself is represented
by many witnesses that differ in small details.- ch. 21A
4. Differences between Inner-Biblical Parallel Texts in
The textual witnesses of the biblical books often contain parallel versions
of the same unit. Some of these reflect different formulations in m itself of
the same psalm (Psalm 18 II 2 Samuel 22; Psalm 14 II Psalm 53), a
genealogical list (Ezra 2 II Neh 7:6-72), segments of books (Jeremiah 52 !I
2 Kgs 24:18-25:30; Isa 36:1-38:8 II 2 Kgs 18:13-20:11), and even large
segments of a complete book, viz., Chronicles, large sections of which
run parallel to the books of Samuel and Kings. Some of these parallel
sources are based on ancient texts that already differed from one another
before they were incorporated into the biblical books, and which
additionally underwent changes after they were transmitted separately
from one generation to the next. In some instances, textual differences
between parallel sources in m can easily be located, as in the texts
presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Gen 10:1-29 m Compared with the Parallel Text 1 Chr 1:4-23 m
m:l"
inl(
iD"iDim ;-ttD'-,l( J1"
c;,'-, 1i'-,11 nD"1 en t:JiD m
nD"i1
Oi"n1
iD"l(
l(:ln:::lo1
""l(
n:::lni nl(1
nl( ]:::l"1 i1iDl(
nl(1 "01:::l";"T 111(1 16 nn 111(1 1i:l:::l
C:iD
ni" 111(1
m;,
i:ll(1
]Oi nl(1 12 n'-,:;, nl(1 i"ll

nl(1 l:l"i1.,
cinD:l nl(1 cntv'-,D
nl(1 "Pill;"! nl(1 m;, nl(1 17
nl(1
inl(1 non;, nl(1
;,'-,1( 20 lltv'-, ill
;-t:ll(:::l ;-t!ll
im1 '-,m1 r1ll l:lil(

inl(;, CiD
iD1l( nl(129l(:::liD nl(1
fil(:::l
nl(1 c::J;,'-, nl(1
nl( i'-,
nD nl( i:::lll j::J '-,:;, ":::ll( 1(1;-t
i"" iiD:lDil(1 24
11
;,1 19
;-t:ll(:::l
cn
p '-, ll
1(1;-t;-t fil(;-t
13 ;,'-,i;;, i"ll;"T 1(1;-t n'-,:;, p1
nl(1 "i1il(;-t nl(1 18
nl( i'-, iD1:l1 8 jii1 !(:liD
m;,'-, '-,n;, 1(1;"1
iiDl( cn'-,o:;, nl(1 coinD nl(1 14
ill
c:ni1
iD1:l en
ntDl(i ;,m 10 ;,1;-t"
lil(1 '-,:::l:::l
cmtD'-,'-,
'-,::Jm )1"1
;,n::Jo1 ;,'-,m1 l(::JO iD1:l
;,;, l(1;-t 9 ril(:::l
nl( i'-,
m'-,1n ;,'-,1(1
i'-, ctv'-,1 21 l:;-t"1;:::l
Clil(1 i1.,1 iiD:lDil(1 i1iDl(1 c'-,l)
i'-, i:::lll'-,1 25 i:::lll 111( i"" n'-,iD1 n'-,tv 111(
iil(1 "]',tv nl(1 ii1o'-,l( nl( i'-,
1nl( c:tv1 ril(;"l
111(1 '-,:::l1!J nl(1 28 ;,',pi 111(1 '-,nl( i1l(1 l:i1i;"T i1l(1 27

;,'-,!( '-,:; :::l:::l1" 111(1_;,'-,m iil(1
Differences between Gen 10:1-29
sections:
3
m and
13
1 Chr 1:4-23
m in
the overlapping
1 Chr 1:6
1 Chr 1:6
tv'iDim ] ;"TiD'iDim 1 Chr 1:7
C':lii1 ] cm11 1 Chr 1:7
n5:l'i1 ] 1'15:l'i1
;,o,,m ] ;,oi,1m
7
8
;"TO.Di . . .
;,o.Di 1 ;,n::101 ]
...
1 Chr 1 :9
1 Chr 1:10
1 Chr 1:10
l:l'i1'? ] l:l"i1'? ChrKetib 1 Chr 1:11 (Qere: l:l'i1'?)
]
1 Chr 1:13
':1::11]
i1'?1 1 Chr 1:17
r1.D 1r1.D1 1 Chr 1:17
iD01 ] liD01 1 Chr 1:17
'?::11.1' ] '?::!'.!' 1 Chr 1 :22
]
1 Chr 1:23
iiO:I] i1i0:1
i::l' ] i1::l'
13
15
23
28
29
This table presents the text of Gen 10:1-29 m in which the overlaps with the
parallel text in 1 Chr 1:4-23 in m (including some differences in details) are
underlined, while the non-overlapping text is not. The high level of agreement
between the two texts clearly shows that the lists in Genesis and Chronicles are
closely related. 18 In this case, it is not difficult to distinguish between textual and
other differences.19
The list in 1 Chr 1:4-23 reproduces the genealogical data of Genesis as well as
a few narrative segments. The agreement between the two lists in m involves the
smallest details, implying that little textual corruption occurred in these units,
neither when the Chronicler copied the list from his source, which must have
been very close to the present text of m in Genesis, nor during the course of the
textual transmission in the ensuing centuries. The only differences between the
two texts are in spelling (11 x),20 a different linguistic form (v 4), an added waw
(v 23), and a few scribal interchanges, undoubtedly representing errors in one of
the two texts (vv 3, 4, 23, 28). Vv 4 and 28 are discussed on p. 16. The nature of
one case remains unresolved, 21 but all other differences fall under the heading of
scribal transmission such as described in ch. 4.
18 1 Chronicles 1 contains summaries of genealogies in Genesis 5, 10-11, 25, 35-36. Also

within the sections from Genesis 10, the Chronicler presented a summary of his source,
since he left out some segments (Gen 10:5,9-12, 18 end, 19-21). Furthermore, the reworking of the Chronicler included the removal of headings and conclusions in Genesis.
19 When the texts differ, we may correct details in one text to those in the parallel text (see
the discussion of vv 4 and 28 on p. 16), but the basic dichotomy between the texts
should be maintained since they were composed by different authors.
2 Chronicles always presents a fuller orthography+.-+ p. 213
21 Gen 10:22 mentions the five sons of Shem, among them Aram, while the next verse lists
Aram's four sons. However, in 1 Chr 1:17, the words "the sons of Aram" are missing in
m+, a waw is added before Uz, and as a result Shem is presented as having nine
14
The relation between the parallel Psalms 14 and 53 (Table 2) is more

complicated than between the texts presented in Table 1, but they
represent the same Psalm transmitted in two different versions.
Table 2
Psalm 14m Compared with the Parallel Text of Psalm 53
i1iDll )'!'\ i1'?'?ll 1:::l'llni1 1n'niDi1 ci1'?1'\ )'!'\ 1:::l'?:::l '?:::lJ iOI'\ 111'?
iO '?::li1 3 C'i1'?1'\ nl'\ iDi1 '?:liDO iD'i1 n11'\i'? C11'\ 'J:::l '?ll
en'? 1'?::ll'\ 'Oll '?;:,!'\ )11'\ '?ll5:1 '?;:, 1ll1' l'\'?i1 4 1nl'\ CJ )'!'\
i11i1' ;:, 1iD':::ln 'Jll
C'OiDO i11i1'2
i1iDll )'!'\ m'?l'\: 11n
i11:::l ci1'?1'\ ;:, 1n5:1 11n5:1 ctvs 11'\ip !'\'? i11i1'
'?1'\iiD' noiD' :::lPll' '?J 10ll m:::liD i11i1' :l1iD:::l '?1'\iiD' nll1iD'
1n o 7 mono
Differences between Psalm 14m and Psalm 53 m:

1
111'? ] 111'? '?:liDO n'?no '?ll Ps 53:1
1:::l'llni1 ] 1:::l'llni11 Ps 53:2
i1'?'?ll ] '?1ll Ps 53:2
i11i1' ] C'i1'?1'\ Ps 53:3
2
'?::li1 ] 1'?;:, Ps 53:4
3
iO ] JO Ps 53:4
'?;:, ] > Ps 53:4
4
i11i1' ] ci1'?1'\ Ps 53:5
1n5:1 ] + 1n5:1 i1'i1 !'\'? Ps 53:6
5
i11:::l ] il5:1 Ps 53:6
] > Ps 53:6
6
'Jll
] 1m
Ps 53:6
1iD':::ln ] i1niD':::li1 Ps 53:6
;:,] > Ps 53:6
i11i1' ] C'i1'?1'\ Ps 53:6
1i10no ] COI'\O Ps 53:6
7
nll1iD' ] n1ll1iD' Ps 53:7
i11i1' ] C'i1'?1'\ Ps 53:7
This table presents the text of Psalm 14m in which the overlaps between the two
texts are underlined, while the differences are not.
While there are several substantial differences between the two psalms in m,
they share the same ideas and are therefore analyzed in the commentaries as a
single psalm. Some scholars attempt to reconstruct the text that was at the base of
the two transmitted psalms.22
children. The difference between the two texts was probably caused by a textual error.
Alternatively, the difference may have been intentional, involving a different view of
the source of the Arameans. Japhet, Chronicles, 59 is undecided.
22 C.C. Torrey, "The Archetype of Psalms 14 and 53," /BL 46 (1927) 186-92; K. Budde,
"Psalm 14 und 53," JBL 47 (1928) 160-83. In some details, these scholars consider the
15
In their common text, the two psalms speak out against the nations who deny
God's existence and devour His people, and end with a prayer for salvation
emanating from Zion. The differences between the two versions were created
during the course of their scribal transmission, with additional differences
created by separate exegesis. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between
these two levels since several of these differences can be explained in different
ways.
Most differences were created during the scribal transmission: - pp. 219-62
1 il'?''?l) ] '?1.!) Ps 53:2. After the word pair
1n'niVil, the general il'?'?l)
(deed) is appropriate and not ',ul, which creates a tautology. The two words are
tantalizingly close, and therefore a graphical interchange is likely.
3 10 ] JO Ps 53:4. It is difficult to decide which reading is preferable, but the
words clearly developed from one another.
5 p1:;:
] li5l Ps 53:6. An interchange of
and li5l is likely, resulting in
words carrying opposite meanings. According to Psalm 14, "God is present in the
circle of the righteous" (NJPS) including a word p1:;: not found in Psalm 53, while
according to Psalm 53 "God has scattered the bones of your besiegers."
] ilniD'::lil 1:ln
Ps 53:6 and
]
Ps 53:6. The two
6 1iD'::ln ':ll)
psalms display diametrically opposing pictures. The most clearly recognizable
difference is that God "rejected" Israel's enemies in Psalm 53, while in Psalm 14
God serves as the "refuge" of his righteous followers (second group of variants).
However, graphically the Hebrew words are very similar. Likewise, the first
group of variants (Psalm 14: "You would confound the plans of the poor"
[NRSV] II Psalm 53: "[God has scattered] the bones of your besiegers. You have
put <them> to shame.") offers two different pictures, while the Hebrew letters
are similar as indicated in the printing (in addition, the aleph and the het are
phonetically close). Both formulations have their own internal logic, and because
they are graphically similar, one version developed from the other one. -+ ch. 38
Other differences between the two versions are exegetical.
3 '?:liT ] 1'?;:, Ps 53:4.
4 '?;:, ] > Ps 53:4.
Ps 53:6. This additional hemistich+ runs parallel to the
5 1n5l ] + 1n5l il'il
previous one, and may reflect a double, alternative, reading.
Note further an expanded superscription in Ps 53:1 and the replacement of
(God) in vv 2, 4, 7 in Psalm 53,
the Tetragrammata+ of Psalm 14 (il1il') with
as usual in the Elohistic+ Psalter (Psalms 42-89 [or: 83]) ...... Tov, "Coincidental
Textual Nature," 164-6
The analysis in Tables 1 and 2 showed that it is often difficult to

decide whether a certain variation reflects a scribe's content exegesis or a
textual development. Assuming that such a variation often reflects
scribal activity, the parallel texts in m provide a major source of
information about ancient scribal activity, 23 similar to the differences
between ancient scrolls of the same text.
same reading original, usually that of Psalm 14, while in v 5 they go their separate
ways.
23 See the data on pp. 221-39 and Sperber, Grammar.
16
Even though there is no direct, archeological, evidence (that is, ancient

scrolls) for the earliest stages of the transmission of most biblical books,
indirect evidence does exist for this stage in these parallel texts within m
itself. Such differences attest to readings developed in one of the first
stages of the textual transmission, as, for example, between the two
parallel versions of the "Table of the nations" in m (Genesis 10 II 1 Chronicles 1;- Table 1 above):
Gen 10:4
m
C'J111 C'n::l
iD'iD,m i1iD'"l!t ]1' 'J:l1 ( = ([ 0 Ps-J No and o in
1 Chr 1:7
Gen 10:28
1 Chr 1:7)
The descendants of Javan: Elishah and Tarshish, the
Kittim and Dodanim. 24
C'J11i1 c'n::l i1iD'iD,m
11' 'J:l1 (= w. C'J,,,, and II)
'P68Lm in Gen 10:4)
The descendants of Javan: Elishah and Tarshishah, the
Kittim and Rodanim.
nl!t1 ":ll!J nl!t1 ( = S, also in Gen 36:23)
Obal and Abimael

1 Chr 1:22
nl!t1 ":l"ll nl!t1 (= Gen 10:28
w. ([ o; Gen 36:23 m
II)
([ l))
Ebal and Abimael
Similar internal differences are found in the two versions of the list of
David's mighty men in m:
2 Sam 23:28-29 m
i1Jll:l
p :::l?r 29
(= ([ s)
Maharai the Netophathite, 29 Heleb son of Ba'anah the

N etopha thi te
1 Chr 11:30
in Samuel)
Maharai the Netophathite, Heled son of Ba'anah the
Netophathite
i1Jll:lJ:l 17D
(=II) ([ D; = o
The scribal background of differences of this type was already

recognized by R. David Kimhi (RaDaK) in his commentary on "and
Rodanim" in 1 Chr 1:7:25
This word is written with a resh at the beginning. And in the book of
Genesis it is written with two daleths: "and Dodanim." Since the daleth
and resh are similar in appearance, and among the readers of the
genealogies which were written in ancient times, some read a daleth
and some read a resh, some names were preserved for posterity in two
24 For a similar interchange, see Ezek 27:15 m [ 0 Jii - I I ) Po&[wv. In ancient manuscripts,
several modem translations, and some editions (Letteris, Sinai), the differences between
these two names have been removed by changing the Chronicles text in accord with
that of Genesis. Seep. 374 for similar examples.
25 RaDaK's explanation continues the view expressed in Gen. Rab. 37.1 (ed. Theodor
[Berlin: Ittskovsky, 1903-1929] 344), according to which these forms are two different
exegetical variations of the same entity.
17
forms with either a daleth or a resh. Thus it <D/Rodanim> is written in

the book of Genesis with one of the readings and in this book <1
Chronicles> with the other one. This goes to show that both forms
represent one name whether read with a daleth or with a resh. This
applies also to "Riblatah" (2 Kgs 25:6,20; Jer 39:5; 52:9,10,26) written
with a resh and "Diblatah" (Ezek 6:14) with a daleth ... Likewise, words
with waw and yod are interchanged as they are similar in appearance.
In ch. 4c, many similar differences between parallel texts are

presented.26 The differences between Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 and Isa
36:1-38:8 II 2 Kgs 18:13-20:11 are listed in Sof 8.1-2.
B. A Modern Approach to Textual Criticism
Since the discovery in 1947 of Hebrew and Aramaic texts in the Judean
Desert dating from approximately 250 BCE until 135 CE, our knowledge
about the Scripture text has increased greatly. - ch. 21A-c. It should be
remembered that until the time of those discoveries no early Hebrew and
Aramaic Scripture texts were known, except for the Nash papyrus of the
Decalogue - p. 111,27 and as a result the manuscripts of m from the
Middle Ages served as the earliest Scripture sources in the original
languages. Therefore, the research before 1947 was based on HebrewAramaic texts that had been copied 1200 years or more after the
composition of the biblical books. At the same time, scholars also relied
on manuscripts and early papyrus fragments of the ancient translations
- ch. 211, especially of the Septuagint (11)) and the Vulgate (D), which
brought them much closer to the time of the composition of the biblical
books. All these, however, are translations, and the reconstruction of
their Hebrew-Aramaic sources will always remain uncertain. - pp. 1227. Therefore, the discovery in .the Judean Desert of many HebrewAramaic texts dating from two millennia ago has considerably advanced
our knowledge of the early witnesses and the procedure of the copying
and transmitting of texts.
This new knowledge has necessarily changed our understanding of
the Scripture text and, accordingly, our approach to writing an
introduction to textual criticism. Such a new approach is not reflected in
26
27
It is exactly these parallel biblical passages that prompted the development of textual
criticism of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, because they necessitated the comparison of

texts. See especially Kennicott, Dissertation, Part the First compares I CHRON. XI with 2
SAM. V and XXIII (1753); Owen, Critica Sacra (1774). Further studies on this topic are
listed by I. Kalimi, Chronicles, The Books of Chronicles: A Classified Bibliography (Simor
Bible Bibliographies; Jerusalem: Simor, 1990) 52-66.
However, this liturgical papyrus does not represent a witness for the biblical text in the
generally accepted sense of the word.
18
most previously written introductions. The influential introduction of

Roberts, OTTV, was written in 1951, after the discovery of the first texts
in the Judean Desert, but its author was not able to incorporate the new
discoveries in his description. In our view, the introductions of Klein,
Textual Criticism 1974, Deist, Text 1978, id., Witnesses 1988, McCarter,
Textual Criticism 1986, and Wiirthwein, Text 1988 (5th edition) although
written at a time when several Judean Desert texts were known, in many
respects still reflect the approach of the period before the discovery of the
new data. As a matter of fact, the main Judean Desert texts were
published after the publication of these introductions. On the other hand,
the more recent introductions by Wegner* 2006 and Fischer* 2009 pay
much attention to the new discoveries.
In our opinion, the new discoveries have not only added new data
that are of major importance, but have also necessitated a new approach
to the texts that were known before 1947.- pp. 158-60
The new insights are visible in the different amounts of attention
given to the textual sources. Ever since the 17th century, introductory
analyses have given equal attention to all Scriptural texts. Scholars
regarded the ancient translations, especially the Greek and Latin
versions, with esteem, because their manuscripts preceded those of mby
many centuries, and also because Greek and Latin sources were highly
valued in the Church and in the centers of learning in Europe. Therefore,
much attention has been given not only to mbut also to the Greek, Latin,
and Aramaic versions, including the Peshitta (5), and even to the
"daughter" (or secondary) versions made from , such as the Latin,
Armenian, Coptic, and Ethiopic translations. - p. 127. After some time,
scholars realized that most of these translations were only of limited
value for the textual criticism of the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible, and that
their importance was confined mainly to biblical exegesis. Nevertheless,
these primary and secondary translations were still given extensive
treatment in textual descriptions, commentaries, and even in the BH
series. 28 In our view, this approach is no longer relevant for modern
textual criticism. Therefore, the different coverage of the various sources
in this introduction reflects our textual outlook. This monograph devotes
less attention than in the past to the description of the medieval
manuscripts of m and to most of the ancient versions, whose importance
for the textual criticism of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture-as opposed to
28 Nevertheless, the BH series contains almost no notes referring solely to the Aramaic or
Latin translations, or one of the "daughter" translations+ of lB. Such evidence is mainly
mentioned in conjunction with that of additional sources.-+ Tov, "Aramaic"
19
exegesis-is limited. On the other hand, much attention is devoted to

texts whose relevance has been proven, that is, m, the Judean Desert
texts, the Samaritan Pentateuch (w.), and 113.
The study of the biblical text was initiated as an auxiliary science to
biblical exegesis. Therefore, the results of textual investigation have been
taken into consideration in exegesis, and that practice continues to be
followed today. Textual criticism has a distinctly practical aspect for
biblical exegesis, but as a rule this feature has not been reflected
sufficiently in the extant handbooks on textual criticism. Unlike those
handbooks, chapters 6-8 of this book deal extensively with exegetical
aspects. Within this framework, the relevance of textual criticism to
literary analysis, a topic that is usually not treated in handbooks such as
this, is covered extensively inch. 7.
C. Beginnings of Critical Inquiry into the Scripture Text
Barthelemy, Critique textue/le 1992, *1-*63; B. Chiesa, "Appunti di storia della critica del
testo dell' Antico Testamento ebraico," Henoch 12 (1990) 3-14; L. Diestel, Geschichte des A/ten
Testaments in der christlichen Kirche Qena: Mauke, 1869); Eichhorn, Einleitung; CashenGottstein, "Biblical Manuscripts"; K.F. Keil, Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the
Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, vol. II (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1892); Konig,
Einleitung; H.J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des A/ten Testaments (3'd
ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982); F. Laplanche, L'Ecriture, le sacre et /'histoire:
Erudits et politiques protestants devant Ia Bible en France au xvne siec/e (Amsterdam/ Maarssen:
APA-Holland University Press, 1986); Rosenmiiller, Handbuc/z; Steuernagei, Einleitung, 22.
Interest in the text of Scripture began in the first centuries CE when

learned church fathers compared the text of Jewish Scripture with its
Greek versions. In the 3rct century, Origen prepared a six-column edition
(hence its name: Hexapla
edition]) of Hebrew-Aramaic
Scripture, which contained the Hebrew-Aramaic text, its transliteration
into Greek characters, and four different Greek versions. -+ pp. 145-6.
Likewise, Jerome+ included various notes comparing words in the
Hebrew text and their renderings in Greek and Latin translations in his
commentaries. -+ ch. 2, Table 8 (p. 46)
The critical investigation of the relation between the various textual
witnesses began in the 17th century with the appearance of the Polyglot
text editions+, which invited their comparison because they presented the
various witnesses in parallel columns. The first extensive textual treatises
are those by Cappellus, Morinus, and Richard Simon, displaying an
interest in either m or one or more of the other versions, usually colored
20
by Catholic-Protestant polemics. 29 The reader of Cappellus, Critica Sacra

(1650) is amazed at the level of knowledge, acumen, and critical insight
displayed by this scholar, foreshadowing all modern analyses.
After the middle of the 17th century, a great many critical treatises
appeared on the Scriptural text, though it should be recognized that
philological analysis and theological discussion often went hand in hand
in this and the following century. The three aforementioned studies, as
well as many by Buxtorf, Glassius, Hottinger, Houbigant, Kennicott,
Rosenmi.iller, and de Rossi, contributed much to the development of the
critical approach to the biblical text. 30 The Einleitung of Eichhorn* (17801823) stands out as a work of immense learning and sophistication in the
18th century, which also had a major influence on subsequent
generations. 31 Among the many names that may be mentioned from the
19th century, see especially de Lagarde, Perles, Cornill, and Wellhausen,
who displayed a remarkable insight into textual criticism (-+the general
bibliography on pp. xxix-lv). In many areas of textual criticism, it is often
best to start with these older works, since an intuitive grasp of the issues
underlying divergent texts is just as important in this art as information
deriving from recently discovered data (e.g. the Qumran texts).
Wellhausen, BUcher Samuelis and the introductions of Konig* and
Steuernagel* exhibited this type of intuition in very particular ways.
However, the modern description of textual criticism differs significantly
from earlier discussions as a result of the contribution of the newly
discovered Qumran texts to almost every area of textual criticism. For
many other respects of the history of the investigation of the biblical text,
see ch. 3A.
D. Text, Canon, and Sacred Status
The books of Hebrew Scripture were gradually accepted as binding

(authoritative) and at some point were integrated into different
collections of sacred writings, among them those of m, \13, and ill.
However, scribal processes started a long time before the books obtained
authoritative status, also named canonization+ when referring to
Scripture as a whole. For example, Jeremiah 36 describes how the
29 Morinus, Exerc.; Cappellus, Critica Sacra; Richard Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux
Testament (Paris: Editions de Paris, 1680/Rotterdam: Leers, 1685; repr. Frankfurt:
Minerva, 1973) =A Critical History of the Old Testament (London: Davis, 1682).
3 For bibliographical references, see the general bibliography and ch. 3Al.
31 The works of these scholars have been described in detail by Rosenmtiller*, Keil*,
Barthelemy* 1992, 1*--63*, and Childs, Introduction, 89-92.
21
prophet dictated the contents of a second scroll to Baruch following the

burning of the first one by the king. That scroll thus constituted a second
stage of the scribal development and, in a way, of the growing process of
the book. --+ p. 181, n. 66. The contents of the second scroll cannot be
reconstructed, let alone the first one, but in other cases we know more
about the development stages of the books. Thus, in ch. 7s1 we analyze
the relation between them and \1J versions of Jeremiah, suggesting that \1J
(together with 4QJerb,d) represents an early stage in the literary (editorial)
development of that book, which preceded the edition of m that became
canonical. Elsewhere in ch. 7B, we describe many similar examples of
literary variants+ preserved in non-Masoretic sources. On the basis of this
understanding, we therefore submit that writing processes and textual
transmission can and should be discussed beyond those seen in the final
literary shape of the biblical books, often included in m. This approach
involves the opening up of new horizons beyond m.
When opening up new sources that are relevant for textual criticism,
we thus should keep an open mind with regard to different Scripture
collections. --+ p. 284. When discussing the textual criticism of Hebrew
Scripture, in the view of many scholars we should not consider the
canonical status of m binding for the analysis 32 since the concept of
sacred Scripture was more encompassing than solely that included in m.
Since textual criticism deals with all forms of Hebrew Scripture, it also
covers the content of other sacred collections, namely those included in
\1J, ill, and some Qumran scrolls. Some books included in these collections
preceded the literary crystallization of m, while others were composed
afterwards. In ch. 7s21-23, the reader will therefore find an analysis of
such non-Masoretic works as Psalm 151 (\1J and 11QPsa), the editorial
changes inserted in ill, and the exegetical edition of the Torah in 4QRP.33
Finally, there is not necessarily a connection
status of the Scripture books and the nature of the
Even the most sacred Scripture book, the Torah,
more carefully than the other books, neither in
scrolls nor in other text traditions.--+ p. 188
32
33
between the sacred

scribal transmission.
was not transmitted
the proto-Masoretic
On the other hand, some scholars claim that before the canonical process was
completed, the biblical books as known to us did not yet exist, and therefore the scribal
transmission of the biblical books had not yet taken place.
At the same time, "rewritten Scripture" compositions and abbreviated Qumran scrolls
are excluded from textual analysis with regard to their major deviations from m, even
though some of these compositions were considered authoritative in antiquity. As
remarked on p. 189, deviations from m in these compositions in small details are
included in the analysis.
22
E. Subjectivity of This Book

Subjectivity pervades all chapters of this book, although we try to be as
objective as possible. The objective elements pertain to the description of
facts and textual sources, but these descriptions also include many
subjective components. For example, the recognition of the Qumran
Scribal Practice (-+ pp. 100-105), the characterization of the textual
character of the Qumran scrolls(-+ pp. 105-7), and the description of the
text-critical value of the various translations (-+ pp. 135-40, 146-53) are
all subjective. The recognition of variants+ in the ancient translations i'S
based on a combination of objective criteria and intuition. In the case of
the evaluation of variants+ (ch. 6), we stress that objectivity is impossible,
and that scholars must develop their own subjective reasoning (-+ pp.
279-81). On the whole, something considered a solid fact by one scholar
is contested by another. Thus, almost every paragraph in this book
attests to subjectivity, which needs to be taken into consideration.
2
TEXTUAL WITNESSES
I. HEBREW WITNESSES
The Scripture text is known from many textual witnesses (sources, texts),
in Hebrew and in translation. The discussion of the Hebrew sources in
this chapter is central to this book as a whole since all other chapters are
based upon this description and constantly refer to it.
In the description that follows, the analysis of the Hebrew witnesses
(part I of this chapter) is separated from that of the ancient translations
(part II). Part I describes the direct evidence, while the data covered by
part II are indirect because they are based on the reconstructed Hebrew
source of translations. Within each group, the sources are described in
chronological order, although precision is impossible. The first two
sections in part I (A, B) discuss texts that are well known from medieval
sources (m and ru), and they are both discussed here together with the
less known early texts from which they developed (proto-Masoretic and
pre-Samaritan texts from the Judean Desert). In our terminology, a
distinction is made between the proto-Masoretic+ (proto-rabbinic) texts,
which are the actual forerunners of the medieval m and belong to the
same group, and the pre-Samaritan+ texts from Qumran on one of which
ru was based. In other words, the proto-Masoretic texts were Masoretic,
so to speak, while the pre-Samaritan texts were not Samaritan.
One of our goals is to advance the understanding of the biblical text as having
developed diachronically in different directions from the earliest periods to the
Middle Ages. At the same time, we would like to advance the synchronic
understanding of the biblical text during certain periods, especially that of the
Second Temple, for which relatively much manuscript evidence is available. For
this purpose, it would be advantageous to depict the oldest layer of m (the protoMasoretic texts) together with other early witnesses (mainly and the m-like
Qumran texts) without involving the medieval elements of m, which are visible,
for example, in vocalization and accentuation. However, for practical reasons,
this separation of the layers of m is not possible because the description of the late
elements of m is intertwined with that of its early layer.
24
A. Proto-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (m-Group)

Barthelemy, Critique textue/le 1992, vii-cxvi; Beit-Arie, "Practices"; Breuer, Aleppo Codex
(1976); Cohen, "Masoretic Text" (1986); A. Diez Macho, Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de Ia
Biblia (SEAug 5; Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 1971); A. Dotan, "Masorah,"
EncJud (1971) 16.1401-82; Ginsburg, Introduction; Glatzer, "Aleppo Codex"; CashenGottstein, Biblia Rabbinica, 5-16; A.M. Habermann, "Bible and Concordance," in Thesaurus of
the Language of the Bible (ed. S.E. Loewenstamm & J. Blau; Jerusalem: Bible Concordance
Press, 1957) l.xix-xxxviii; M.J. Mulder, "The Transmission of the Biblical Text," in id.,
Mikra, 87-135; Rabin, mhqrym; A. Schenker, "Der Ursprung des massoretischen Textes im
Licht der literarischen Varianten im Bibeltext," Textus 23 (2007) 51-67; A. Sperber, Grammar;
I. Yeivin, "mqr , ktby yd sl hmqr'," EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1968) 5.418-38; id.,
"mswrh," ibid., 130-59; id., mbhr ktby-yd bsytwt nyqwd .tbrny w 'r;;-ysr 'ly Oerusalem:
Akademon, 1973); id., Introduction (1980); id., Masorah (2003).
toors: Accordance, BibleWorks, The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library, Global Jewish
Database (Responsa Project), Gramcord for Windows, Jewish Classics Library, Libroi, Logos,
Mechon Mamre, SESB, Snwzit, and WordSearch include biblical modules based on either
codex L+ or BHS 1 with certain editorial liberties (e.g. the determining of the vocalization of
the Ketib+ words in order to enable word searches). For details, see Tov, "Electronic
Resources" 2003, 2008. The Bar-Ilan database Tokhnit "HaKeter"-Ma 'agar HaTanakh, part of
the Miqra 'ot Gedolot "HaKeter" project, is based on codex A, which differs only slightly from
L, but for students of grammar these differences are important.
The name Masoretic Text refers to a group of manuscripts (the m-group)

that are closely related to one another. Many of the elements of these
manuscripts, including their final form, were determined in the early
Middle Ages, but they continue a much earlier tradition. The name
Masoretic Text was given to this group because of the apparatus of the
Masorah attached to it. -+ 5. This apparatus, which was added to the
consonantal base, developed from earlier traditions in the 7th to the 11th
centuries-the main developments occurring in the beginning of the lOth
century with the activity of the Ben Asher+ family in Tiberias.
As a rule, the term Masoretic Text is limited merely to a segment of the
representatives of the textual tradition of m, namely, that textual tradition
that was given its final form by Aaron Ben Asher of the Tiberian branch
of the Masoretes+. Since all the printed editions and most manuscripts
reflect this Ben Asher+ tradition, the term Masoretic Text is imprecise, for
it is actually used only for part of the Masoretic tradition, viz., that of Ben
Asher. In order to avoid this imprecision, Goshen-Gottstein* distinguished between MT in general and the Tiberian MT (TMT). When using
the term MT, one usually refers to the Tiberian MT.
The term Masoretic Text is imprecise for another reason, too, form is
not attested in any one single source. Rather, m is an abstract unit
1
In principle, these two sources should be identical, since BHS is based on codex L, but
in practice they are not.
IA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (!TI-Group)
25
reflected in various sources that differ from one another in many details. 2
Another aspect pointing to the inadequacy of the term Masoretic Text is
the fact that the notes of the Masorah+ do not pertain to all the Masoretic
manuscripts, as Cohen* 1986 has demonstrated. Therefore, a term like mgroup or Masoretic Texts would reflect the evidence more precisely. In this
book, we continue to use the conventional term Masoretic Text or m
alongside that of them-group.
The principal component of m is that of the letters, evidenced
fragmentarily in antiquity in the Judean Desert texts, and to this text all
other elements were added during the early Middle Ages. Therefore,
although the medieval form of m is relatively late, its consonantal
framework reflects an ancient tradition that was in existence more than a
thousand years earlier in many sources, among them many Judean
Desert texts from places other than Qumran, copied in the period
between 50 BCE and 115 CE. --+ p. 29. Accordingly, scholars usually
designate the consonantal base of m (evidenced in the Second Temple
period) as proto-Masoretic although sometimes also, anachronistically, as
the Masoretic Text. The terms proto-rabbinic and rabbinic texts are used
less frequently, although they actually describe the nature of m and its
forerunners more precisely.--+ p. 27
m contains:
1. The consonantal framework 3 attested m proto-Masoretic (proto-
rabbinic) texts from the Judean Desert;

2. Vocalization( 2);
3. Para-textual elements ( 3);
4. Accentuation ( 4);
5. The apparatus of the Masorah ( 5).
m has served as the most commonly used form of the Hebrew-Aramaic
Bible ever since its acceptance as authoritative by all Jewish communities
in its consonantal form probably in the 1st century CE, and several
centuries later in conjunction with its vocalization, accentuation, and the
apparatus of Masoretic notes. Because of this acceptance, initially of the
proto-Masoretic text by rabbinic Judaism and later of m by all sections of
the Jewish people, m is attested in a very large number of sources. More
than six thousand manuscripts belonging to the !11-group are known. In
the words of Beit-Arie*, 72, " ... of some 2700 extant dated Hebrew
manuscripts prior to 1540, six dated codices from the tenth century, eight
2
See below, n. 7, on the possibility of a single archetype at the base of m.

This term is used here for all the letters, including the vowel letters '"lint
26
from the eleventh century, and 22 from the twelfth century are known to
us, most of them Oriental. In addition, there are about sixty small
fragments of Oriental codices dated before 1200 among the geniza
fragments." In addition, all printed editions of the Hebrew Bible(--+ ch. 9)
are based on m.
The Masoretic codices, consisting of quires bound like books .... plates 11 *-15*,
were written by scribes in accordance with the halakhot, "religious instructions,"
relating to the conventions for the preparation of the leather, ruling, writing, and
correcting ..... ch. 4B1-2
The various components of the text were inserted by different people. Soferim,
"Scribes" wrote down the consonantal text, naqdanim, "vocalization experts''
added the vowels and accents, and Masoretes (ba 'ale ha-Masorah, "masters of the
Masorah") wrote the notes of the Masorah. However, the Masoretes were often
also involved with the other components of m and, therefore, the term Masoretes
often refers to those involved with all aspects of the copying of the medieval
manuscripts.
1. The Consonantal Framework: Proto-Masoretic Texts and m

F.l. Andersen & D.N. Freedman, "Another Look at 4QSamb," RevQ 14 (1989) 7-29; Cohen,
"Some Basic Features of the Consonantal Text in Medieval Manuscripts of the Hebrew
Bible," Studies in Bible and Exegesis, 1.123-82; id., "Masoretic Text" (1986); Goshen-Gottstein,
"Biblical Manuscripts"; Lange, "Plurality" (2010); Y. Maori, "mwb'wt mqr'ywt bsprwt hz"l,"
Mahanayim 70 (1962) 90-99; Penkower, "Pentateuchal MS" (1988); id., "The Development of
the Masoretic Bible," in The Jewish Study Bible (ed. A. Berlin & M.Z. Brettler; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004) 2077--84; Tov, "The Text of the Hebrew I Aramaic and Greek Bible
Used in the Ancient Synagogues," HB, GB, and Qumran (2008) 171-88; id., "Aramaic"; E.
Ulrich, "Two Perspectives on Two Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Masada," in Paul,
Emanuel (2003) 453--M; Young, "Stabilization." See further the literature on p. 219.
a. Background
The representatives of m (the m-group) form a tight group (family) of
texts that differ from the other witnesses. The m-group shares a large
number of readings and characteristic features, even though no defining
textual characteristics can be identified in the content of m, except for the
careful copying, fine quality, and antiquity of its text in most of the
biblical books. On the other hand, on a socio-religious level this text is
unique since, at a certain stage, it was preferred to the other texts by the
group that was later named the rabbinic movement. As a result, the mgroup is the largest among the Scripture witnesses. From m's
preservation, it is clear that the text, including the para-textual+ notations
--+ 3, has been more or less frozen since at least the 3rct century BCE. When
evaluating the quality of m, one should realize that the preference form
within Judaism does not necessarily imply that it contains the best
(earliest) evidence of the Scripture text; both the Hebrew parent text of 11)
IA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and tile Masoretic Text (In-Group)
27
and several Qumran manuscripts reflect excellent texts, often better

and/ or earlier than m...... pp. 110, 135-40
When m became the central text, at first within rabbinic Judaism and later for
the Jewish people as a whole, no further changes, additions or omissions were
allowed ..... c, not even in small details such as the use of matres lectionis+.
Therefore, throughout the centuries, m preserved the biblical text in the exact
form in which it was current at a particular time within a particular circle; it even
preserved such scribal minutiae as the extraordinary points+ and other paratextual+ elements ( 3d) most of which were not meant to be preserved for the
following generations. Precisely the same text(s) of m is (are) first attested to in
the scrolls from Masada and other sites in the Judean Desert (copied between 50
BCE and 115 CE), but probably they go back to an earlier period. Very similar texts
(!11-like texts) were found at Qumran from the mid-third century BCE onwards.
For both groups of texts, see b.
After the proto-Masoretic text had become the accepted text, especially within
rabbinic Judaism, it was copied many times and, as a result of its central status,
most of the ancient translations were based upon one of its slightly different
representatives: the Targumim, 5, the revisions (recensions) of
(among them
kaige-Th+, Aquila+, Symmachus+, and the fifth column of the Hexapla+), and 0. 4
..... part II of this chapter. Likewise, m is quoted exclusively in both early and late
rabbinic literature ...... pp. 33-4
b. Development of the Consonantal Text
The evidence from the Judean Desert allows us not only to comprehend
the textual situation at the time of the copying of these scrolls, but also to
improve our understanding of the development of m and to postulate a
stage before the earliest available manuscript evidence. The different
attestations of the consonantal text of m point to three main stages that
reflect a growing measure of agreement between the sources forming the
m-group. A different type of manuscript evidence characterizes each
stage. These three stages, recognized on the basis of evidence, were
preceded by an additional, hypothetical stage.s The internal
development of the m-group may be described as one of increased
textual stability, not to be confused with the possibility of a
standardization process for the biblical text as a whole, which is rejected
in ch. 3c2. The description that follows refers only to the precursors of m
(the proto-Masoretic texts) and m itself, and not to the development of
the biblical text as a whole ...... ch. 3c
i. The assumption of the existence of a stage of m that preceded that of the
manuscript evidence from the Judean Desert is hypothetical. The origins of m are
unclear, but similar texts must have existed before the stage for which we have
manuscript evidence, that is, before them-like texts from Qumran (c. 250 BCE).
4
5
Accordingly, in this book, the siglum m+ refers tom q: 5o.

The description of these periods differs from TCHB 2.
28
There probably are no sound criteria for establishing the original date of !TI
based on its contents. In any event, such a date would have differed from book to
book. 6 In the establishing of this date or these dates, we need not take into
consideration the canonization+ process of Hebrew Scripture, since copies of m of
some books could have existed before the establishment of m as authoritative
Scripture.
We do not know whether we should postulate one or more copies for the first
stage of m, possibly in the 5 1h, 4 1h, or the beginning of the 3'd century BCE. If there
was a single text, it may well have been the predecessor of the Scroll of the
Temple Court+ mentioned in rabbinic literature. - pp. 30-31? In any event, if
there ever was an early single archetype of m, it cannot be reconstructed.
At this first hypothetical stage, m already must have been a good text,
although not written with the same precision a.s that displayed in later periods.
The orthography+ was inconsistent - ch. 4B4, and at least Samuel contained
relatively many mistakes and was marred by theological tendencies. - pp. 189,
254-6. Although there is no manuscript evidence pertaining to the internal
differences within the m-group in the first period, it would appear from a
comparison of parallel texts within m itself that such differences already existed
between the various textual witnesses at an early stage.- pp. 12-17
ii. The second stage of the textual transmission extended over a long time-span.
Its beginning and end are determined by the presence of texts in the Judean
Desert dating from c. 250 BCE (the earliest Qumran evidence) to the time of the
Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 CE). The texts themselves (found at Wadi Murabba'at,
Wadi Sdeir, Nahal 1-:lever, and Nahal Se'elim) are assigned to the period until c.
115 CE. The earliest textual evidence of m displays a rather uniform picture,
including m-like texts from Qumran and proto-Masoretic texts, which are
identical to the medieval m, from the other sites. The destruction of the Second
Temple in 70 CE, occurring in the middle of this period, did not trigger a
stabilization process as is often believed. Since rabbinic Judaism was the only
group to survive, its texts likewise were the only survivors.- pp. 178-80
The witnesses for this stage may be divided into two groups, defined in
accordance with their closeness to codex L (Leningrad codex B19A- plate 13*) of
6 Only unstable evidence is available: (l) On the basis of its orthography, m has been
dated by different scholars to the periods between 550 and 350 BCE, 400 and 100 BCE,
and to the end of the 3'd century or the beginning of the 2"d century BCE.- p. 212. Some
of these dates are early, and precede the stage of the available evidence. (2) Since three
paleo-Hebrew texts found at Qumran are close tom (4QpaleoGen-Exod 1, 1QpaleoLev,
4QpaleoDeutr), they probably provide information about m from a period preceding its
attestation in Masoretic manuscripts written in the square script: The texts written in
the paleo-Hebrew script were probably copied from other texts written in the paleoHebrew script or in the early Hebrew script rather than from texts written in the square
script, allowing us to obtain information concerning an early period in the history of the
biblical text.- pp. 206-8
7 Referring to the medieval representatives of m, de Lagarde surmised that all of them
attest to a single archetype in antiquity because all the copies reflect its distinctive
scribal features, such as the extraordinary points+ and distinct common errors, for
example in Samuel.- pp. 171, 189. This assumption is reasonable, but the date of the
archetype of the medieval manuscripts (consonantal text only) is probably later than the
51h-3rdcenturies BCE mentioned above.
IA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (In-Group)
29
m, the best complete representative of the medieval text. The evidence of the
latter group (b) is earlier than that of the former (a), but typologically it reflects a
later development.
(a) All the 25 texts that were found in the Judean Desert at sites other than
Qumran display almost complete identity with codex L. 8 These texts were found
at both the earlier site of Masada (texts written between 50 BCE and 30 CE)9 and
the later sites of Wadi Murabba'at, Wadi Sdeir, Nahal Bever, Nahal Arugot, and
Nahal Se'elim, dating to the period of the Bar Kochba revolt in 132-135 CE (texts
copied between 20 and 115 CE). This identity can be seen best in an examination
of the well-preserved texts MasPs 3 (end of the 1st century BCE), MasLevb (30 BCE30 CE), 5/6HevPs (50-68 CE), and MurXII (c. 115 CE), as shown by Young* 10 and
Lange* 2010. Recognizing that few differences exist between L and the other
medieval sources of m, we note that these differences are of the same nature as
those between L and the Judean Desert texts. The relation between L and the
ancient Judean Desert texts is one of almost complete identity 11 since the consonantal framework of m changed very little over the course of one thousand years.
Some translations that derive from this period reflect m: some of the
Targumim and 5 (to a lesser extent), both originating during either the second or
third stage of m, as well as two revisions of the oc+, kaige-Th+ probably dating to
the middle of the pt century BCE and Aquila+ probably dating to 125 CE. -+ pp.
143-4, 149, 152. In fact, all translations that originated from the pt century CE
onwards are bound to reflect the Hebrew text that was to become the medieval
m. At that time, there simply were no other Jewish Hebrew texts to be translated.
Besides, the Targumim were the in-house texts of rabbinic Judaism and therefore
by definition they were based on m. Reflecting this situation, this book uses the
siglum m+ referring to the combined evidence of m ([ 5 0. 12
The key to understanding the background of the different scrolls found in the
Judean Desert lies in the correlation between their nature and the socio-religious
background of the archeological sites. -+ Tov* 2008. What the earlier site of
Masada (scrolls written between 50 BCE and 30 CE) and the Bar Kochba sites
8
The agreement between MasLevb, one of the manuscripts in this group, and codex L
pertains to the intricacies of orthography, including details in which the orthography ad
lac. goes against the conventions elsewhere in the book such as the defective
in
Lev 9:2, 3 (col. I II, 13) and the defective hiph 'i/ form 1::l1P'1 in Lev 9:9 (col. I 21). Likewise,
all the Qumran manuscripts represent the anomalous m form
as
while only
MasLevb has
(Lev 10:17; 11:6).
9 Good sources for analysis are MasPs 3 and MasLevb (see below).
10 Young records the number of variants from m included in each text, and then calculates
the ratio of variation for each text by dividing the number of preserved words by the
variants. The lower that number, the greater is the divergence from L. In this way, he
demonstrates the clear difference between the status of the Qumran scrolls as somewhat
remote from m, and those from the other Judean Desert sites as identical tom.
11 There has been some discussion as to which terminology best describes the consonantal
framework of the proto-Masoretic texts of the last century BCE, but their almost
complete identity is stable. However, on the basis of his study of MasGen and MasLev 3 ,
Ulrich* 2003, 456 challenges the closeness of these scrolls tom.
12 The readings of kaige-Th, Aquila, Symmachus, and the Hexapla usually join the
evidence of m ([ 5 D, but since their evidence is fragmentary, the siglum !H+ does not
cover them.
30
(scrolls written between 20 BCE and 115 CE) have in common, in contradistinction
with the Qumran scrolls (analyzed on p. 31), 13 is that the people who left the
scrolls behind at these sites (the Masada rebels and the freedom fighters of BarKochba) closely followed the guidance of the Jerusalem spiritual center in
religious matters. They exclusively used the proto-Masoretic ("proto-rabbinic")
text embraced by the spiritual leadership of Jerusalem. Some scholars even stress
the priestly influence on the leadership of the revolt.-+ Tov* 2008, 177
As a background explanation for the virtual lack of differences between the
copies of m in early times and through the centuries, Tov* 2008 pointed to
rabbinic traditions regarding precision in the copying of scrolls, 14 the existence of
a master copy of the Torah in the Temple Court, 15 and the correction procedure
of scrolls according to this master copy. 16 On the basis of these traditions, Tov
13 The differences between the two sites are most visible when texts from the same period
are compared. All the texts copied from the beginning of the 1'' century CE until 65 CE
from Qumran are of a varied nature, with only very few m-like texts, while the texts
from the same period (until 115 CE) from Judean Desert sites other than Qumran only
reflect m.-+ Tov, "Diffusion"
14 The meticulous care in the transmission of m is reflected in the words of R. Ishmael:
"My son, be careful, because your work is the work of heaven; should you omit (even)
one letter or add (even) one letter, the whole world would be destroyed" (b. Sot. 20a).
This precision also pertained to matters of orthography, since various halakhot,
"religious instructions," were seemingly based on the precise spelling of words. For
example, the number of the walls of the sukkah (four) is determined according to the
majority m spelling
(b. Sukk. 6b), disregarding a spelling n1:>10 with five letters (cf.
1Qlsaa in [sa 1:8 [p. 105]) or n:>o (Neh 8:15) with three letters.
15 Rabbinic sources deriving from a period later than the Judean Desert evidence provide
descriptions of earlier textual procedures, which were also their own. In these
descriptions, we read of a master copy of the Torah found in the Temple Court, and of
scrolls copied from or revised according to that copy. The term sefer ha- 'azarah (.,ElO
i1.,Hlii, with a variant K.,llJ .,ElO, the book of Ezra) probably referred only to the Torah,
but it stands to reason that (the) other Scripture books were also found in the Temple.
For details, see Tov* 2008, 177-9.
The depositing and preserving of holy books in the Temple, as implied by various
references in rabbinic literature, resembles the modern concept of publication.
-+ Lieberman, Hellenism, 85-7. This procedure can be paralleled by evidence from
ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Thus, already, Eichhorn, Einleitung (4'h ed.; 1823) 1.19.
See further, ]. Leipoldt and S. Morenz, Heilige Schriften: Betrachtungen zur Religionsgeschichte der antiken Mittelmeerwelt (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1953) 89-91, 165-71; R.T.
Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in
Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985) 80-86; M. Haran, "Scribal Workmanship in Biblical
Times: The Scrolls and the Writing Implements," Tarbiz 50 (1980-1981; Heb.) 65-87 (70-71). These parallels in external sources were stressed greatly in the argumentation of
Kutscher, Language, 82 in favor of the assumed presence of master scrolls in the Temple.
16 On several occasions, rabbinic literature mentions a "corrected scroll," sefer muggah. The
Temple employed professional maggihim, "correctors" whose task it was to safeguard
precision in the copying of the text: i1:>W'?i1 nr:mnt:l )"1:>W J''?01l 1'i1
C'-,ElO 'i1'Jt:l,
"maggihim of books in Jerusalem received their fees from the Temple funds" (b. Ketub.
106a). This description implies that the correcting procedure based on the master copy
in the Temple was financed from the Temple resources that thus provided an
imprimatur. This was the only way to safeguard the proper distribution of precise copies
of Scripture. These scrolls must have been used everywhere in Israel, for public reading
IA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (m-Group)
31
postulated that the Judean Desert scrolls were in fact "corrected copies" that
circulated in ancient Israel. The textual unity described above has to start
somewhere, and the assumption of a master copy is therefore necessary.l 7
(b) Many Qumran scrolls, copied between c. 250 BCE and 68 CE, are very
similar to codex L but not almost identical to it as are the other Judean Desert
texts, and they form a sizable group among the Qumran scrolls. They are named
here nt-like texts.18-+ p. 108. Among them, 4QGenb (Gen 1:1-4:11) is identical to
codex L, while all other texts display several differences in small details and
orthography+, always remaining close to L, and differing from other textual
witnesses.I9 This closeness is exemplified by a listing of the relatively few
differences from L in 1Qisab, dating to the 1'1 century BCE. -+plate 6*. Table 1
shows the close relation, sometimes almost identity, between these two texts. In
col. XXI (Isa 48:17-49:15, remains of 20 verses), one finds 20 differences all
concerning minutiae: 9 differences in orthography and 11 minor, mainly
linguistic, differences.20
Table 1
Differences between Land 1Qlsab in !sa 48:17-49:1521
lQisab
48:17
18
20
21
49:3
4
17
18
19
20
21
Codex L
t('?i
i11
n'-,:l
't:1''?.:;l
as well as for instruction, public and private, as suggested by b. Pesah. 112a, where one
of the five instructions of R. Akiba to his student R. Simeon was: "and when you teach
your son, teach him from a corrected scroll." Another such precise copy was the "Scroll
of the King," which accompanied the king wherever he went. Y. San. 2.20c and Sifre
Deuteronomy 160 (ed. Finkelstein [New York/Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary,
1969] 211) tell us that this scroll was corrected to "the copy in the Temple Court in
accordance with the court of seventy-one members."
This suggestion was already voiced by Krauss, Talmudische Archiiologie, III.171;
Lieberman, Hellenism, 22; Greenberg, "Ancient Versions," 141-2.
Lange, Handbuch, 16 and passim names them-like texts from Qumran "semi-masoretic."
It remains subjective to characterize a Qumran scroll as being close or identical to codex
L; however, such a characterization is probably correct as long as the number of
deviations from L is "small," that is, less than 2% (thus Lange, Handbuch, 16). Ideally,
the text common to codex L and the Qumran text should differ from other ancient
witnesses, but this condition cannot always be met due to a paucity of evidence.
The details are included in OJO XXXII. For a detailed comparison of 1Qlsab with other
sources and a discussion of its broto-Masoretic status, see Barthelemy* 1992, cii-cxvi;
M.G. Abegg, "1Qlsaa and 1Qlsa : A Rematch," in The Bible as Book, 221-8. Against the
majority view regarding the character of 1Qlsab, G. Garbini, "1Qlsab et le texte d'Isare,"
Hen 6 (1984) 17-21 suggested that this scroll is quite remote from m.
According to OJO XXXII, col. XXI, reproduced in plate 6* below.
32

5
',pm
n.o1ib
cp;:r7
riN
7
;"11;"1"
;"11;"1"
',N,,
101p
tzmp
8
10
tzi"'Tj?
noo[iD]
"]lbO
Table 1 refers to one column in lQisab. The complete text of lQisab

(segments of 46 chapters) displays the following types of differences
between the scroll and codex L+, all of which concern minutiae.
Table 2
Types of Differences between 1Qlsab and Codex L22
Orthography
Addition of conjunctive waw
Lack of conjunctive waw
Article (addition/ omission)
Differences in consonants
Missing letters
Differences in number
Differences in pronouns
Different grammatical forms
Different prepositions
Different words
Omission of words
Addition of words
Different sequence
107
16
13
4
10
5
14
6
24
9
11
5
6
4
To this almost complete identity of the medieval m, the proto-Masoretic and

m-like texts from the Judean Desert in orthography, one should add the similarities in the details of the layout of the poetical texts and the text divisions. - pp.
61-2;202,n.22
iii. The third stage of transmission, characterized by a relatively high level of
textual consistency (except for the Severus Scroll, whose text differs from m in
small details- pp. 112-13), extends from the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 CE)
until the 81h century CE. Most of the witnesses for this period pertain to its latter
end: In the 1890s, more than 200,000 fragments of manuscripts, among them tens
22 According to Cohen, qdwst hnwsh, 86, n. 4.
33
of thousands of biblical fragments, dating from the 9th century onward, were
found in the Cairo Genizah+."2 3 All these texts reflect m...... plates 14*, 15*
The following translations reflect the medieval text of m: the Targumim and 5
(to a lesser extent), both originating during either the second or third stage of m,
Symmachus+, the fifth column of the Hexapla+, and D ...... pp. 145-9, 152-3. (Note:
the siglum m+ refers to the combined evidence of m ([ 5 D ..... notes 4, 12). The
great majority of the biblical quotations in rabbinic literature24 and the piyyu_tim
(liturgical hymns)2 5 reflect the text of m.
The following examples of divergences from rabbinic literature point to
exceptions rather than the rule. -+ n. 24
Table 3
Differences between Codex Land Biblical Quotations in Rabbinic Literature
Isa 1:1
m
Gen. Rab. 13.1
Isa 1:3
m
Sifre Deut 309 ed. , (p. 349) 26
Isa 1:18
Sifre Deut 6 ed.
J',tv:;,)
1
(p. 15); 28 MS 1 (p. 45)
p1:Jm !'(', 'r:lll

'r:lll,
(c:;,'l'(t:ln 1w t:Jl'()
1Qisaa)
23 In 2011, most of these fragments remain unpublished, available only on microfilm and
by electronic means. For annotated catalogues, see M.C. Davis, Hebrew Bible Manuscripts
in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, vols. 1-4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Library, 1978-2003); M. Ducan, Bibliotheque de /'Alliance Israelite Universelle: fragments
bibliques en hebreu provenant de guenizot (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008); I. Yeivin, Geniza Bible
Fragments with Babylonian Massorah and Vocalization (Heb.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1973). For
an evaluation, see Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 3-13; J. Hempel, "Der textkritische Wert des
Konsonantentextes von Kairener Geniza-fragmenten in Cambridge und Oxford zum
Deuteronomium nach Kollationen von H.P. Ruger untersucht," NAWG I, Phil.-hist. Kl.
1959, 10, pp. 207-37; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, "Biblical Manuscripts in the United
States," Textus 2 (1962) 28-59; M. Saeb0, "Bemerkungen zur Textgeschichte von
Leviticus. Welchen Wert haben die Varianten aus der Kairoer Geniza?" in Die Hebriiische
Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift for Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (ed.
E. Blum et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990) 131-9.
24 The biblical quotations in rabbinic literature differ occasionally from m, both in direct
quotations and in the exposition. For an analysis and for the history of research, see Y.
Maori, "The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Writings in the Light of the Qumran
Evidence," in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant & U.
Rappaport: Leiden/Jerusalem: Briii/Magnes and Yad Ben-Zvi, 1992) 283-9, and id.,
"Rabbinic Midrash as Evidence for Textual Variants in the Hebrew Bible: History and
Practice," in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations (ed. S.
Carmy; Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson, 1996) 101-29. The material has been collected by S.
Rosenfeld, spr mspbt swprym (Vilna: Romm, 1882); V. Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der
rabbinischen Literatur, vols. I-IV (Vienna: Holder, 1906-1915; repr. New York: Ktav,
1970) pertaining to Joshua-Samuel. The most complete collection is found in the HUB.
..... pp. 357-9
25 Cf. M. Wallenstein, "The Piyyut, with Special Reference to the Textual Study of the Old
Testament," BJRL 34 (1952) 469-76.
26 Ed. Finkelstein (New York/Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969).
34
Jer 30:4
Sifre Deut 1 1, t:l,
Hab 1:13
i1 ,:::l, ,iZlN C',:::l1i1 i1'?N1

,:::l1 ,iZlN C',:::l1i1 i1'?N1
'?
.ll,
Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4.10; 25.1
n1N,O
n1N,O (=
1QpHab)
Table 3 does not include cases of 'al tiqre (..... p. 55) or of midrashim+, as these
reflect an exegetical play with readings that would have been possible in the
context. 27
All textual evidence preserved from the second period reflects m because the
communities that fostered other textual traditions either ceased to exist (the
Qumran covenanters) or dissociated themselves from Judaism (Samaritans and
Christians) ...... pp. 178-80
iv. The fourth stage of transmission, characterized by almost complete textual
unity, extends from the 81h century until the end of the Middle Ages. The main
sources for this period are Masoretic manuscripts containing the apparatus of the
Masorah and biblical quotations in the writings of the traditional Jewish
commentators. 28 The earliest dated Masoretic manuscripts are from the 91h
century. 29 During this period m became almost completely standardized, due
largely to the addition of the apparatuses of vocalization+, accentuation+, and
Masorah+, which necessitated the fixation of the consonants that formed their
base.
The sources from this period are subdivided into manuscripts from the early
Middle Ages (until about 1100) and later manuscripts. The early manuscripts are
more reliable.
Table 4
Differences between Medieval Masoretic Manuscripts
a. Variants Collated by Kennicott 1776-1780 and de Rossi 1784-1788
Gen 1:14
all
MSS
C'OiZli1 .ll'p,:::l n1NO 'i1' C'i1'?N ,ON'1
MS 776
Lev 10:1
1 Kgs 11:20a
of Kennicott adds r,Ni1 '?.ll ,'Ni1'? (= tu

(this addition is influenced by v 15 .ll'P,:::l n11NO'? 1'i11
p 'i1'1 r,Ni1 '?.ll ,'Ni1'? C'OiZli1 and v 17)
all MSS
N1i1':::lN1 :::l1J )1i1N 'J:::l
1np'1
MSS 5,181 of Kennicott
'm 'J:::l
mp'1 (=
all MSS
i1.1l,5:1
11n:::l OJ5:1nn 1i1'?0Jn1
MSS 23,154,182,271A,283A of Kennicott
(=
cf. v 20b i1.1l,5:1 'J:::ll1n:::l)
27 See the extensive discussion by D. Rosenthal, "The Sages' Methodical Approach to

Textual Variants within the Hebrew Bible," in /sac L. Seeligmann Volume, Essays on the
Bible and the Ancient World (ed. A. Rofe & Y. Zakovitch; Heb. with Eng. summ.;
Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1983)
Yelin, hdqdwq, 183-5; Goshen-Gottstein-Talmon,
HUB, Ezekiel, xxxi, n. 86.
28 See e.g. S. Esh, "Variant Readings in Mediaeval Hebrew Commentaries; R. Samuel Ben
Meir (Rashbam)," Textus 5 (1966) 84-92; E.L. Greenstein, "Misquotation of Scripture in
the Dead Sea Scrolls," in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume (ed. B. Walfish; Haifa:
Haifa University Press, 1993) 71-83 (71-3).
29 According to Birnbaum and others, a sheet of a Torah scroll was written somewhat
earlier: S.A. Birnbaum, "A Sheet of an Eighth Century Synagogue Scroll," VT 9 (1959)
122-9.

1 Kgs 12:12
all
MSS
MS
202 of Kennicott
cll:m,
Cll:Jn,
35
(= 1!3)
b. Early Manuscripts ofm (following Breuer* 1976, index)

Josh 3:3
L
A,C,S 1, RB1-2
MSS L, RB1-2
MSS A,C,S 1
MS 5 1
MSS A,L,C, RB1-2
MS C
MSS A,L,S 1, RB1-2
MS
MSS
Josh 3:4 mK
Josh 6:6
Josh 6:9
1J,:J1
1,J:J1
';,
r1,1:::l
';,
m::ntDi1
n1,::l1tDi1
The differences in group b in Table 4 characterize the minute differences

between the medieval manuscripts. Group a records greater differences that are
less characteristic of this period.
Divergencies within the m-group are also reflected in three groups of
differences that have been institutionalized in m:
Ginsburg, Introduction (1897) 197-240; id., "On the Relationship of the So-called Codex
Babylonicus of A.D. 916 to the Eastern Recension of the Hebrew Text," Recueil des trauaux ...
M.D. Chwolson (Berlin: Calvary & Co., 1899) 149-88; Yeivin, Introduction, 139-41.
Even though the scribes of m meticulously preserved a uniform text,

breaches in this unity are occasionally visible. Among the early sources
of m, consonantal differences existed between manuscripts from the West
(Palestine) and manuscripts from the East (Babylon). Some 250 such
differences are mentioned in the notes of the Masorah+ as
'e, "Masoretes of the East" and
Ma 'arba 'e, "Masoretes of
the West." For example,
2 Kgs 8:16b
C,1i1' (Jehoram)--=--
C,1' (Joram)
For "Jehoram," a variant "Joram" is known, as recorded by the Masoretes of the

East.
Notes of this type referred especially to differences between Ketib+ and

Qere+. For example,
Job 17:10 (BH, not BHS) Ma 'arba'e:
MedinM'e:
znK
("and come!")
("they will come")
("and come!")
Most of the manuscripts of m that have been preserved are Tiberian .... p. 24, that
is, Western, and therefore the majority of the Masoretic notations comparing
different traditions refer to readings of the
when the Tiberian
manuscripts differed from Eastern sources. These differences were collected in
the Middle Ages in separate lists that preserved evidence of this type even if in
the manuscripts themselves such evidence was lacking or was not denoted
36
consistently. The lists refer only to discrepancies in consonants, which may

indicate that their origin must have been early, before vowels and accents were
inserted.
Variants in Manuscripts Written in Different Vocalization Systems

B. Chiesa, L'antico Testamento ebraico secondo Ia tradizione palestinese (Torino: Bottega
d'Erasmo, 1978); G. Miletto, L'Antico Testamento ebraico nella tradizione babilonese i frammenti
della Genizah (Quaderni di Henoch 3; Torino: Silvio Zamorani, 1987); id., "II testa
consonantico della tradizione babilonese: Ms. Opp. Add. 4 154 della biblioteca bodleiana,"
Sefarad 54 (1994) 333--61.
The Masoretes added the vowels to the consonants after they had been
fixed, and therefore one would not expect to find many consonantal
differences among the manuscripts writ.ten in different vocalization
systems. - pp. 39-47. Nevertheless, manuscripts vocalized in the Palestinian and Babylonian tradition often differ from Tiberian manuscripts in
consonants. - Chiesa* and Miletto* 1987, 199430
y. Masoretic Notes
The Qere readings recorded in the Masorah preserve many ancient

variants to the Ketib. - pp. 54-9
All these internal differences within the m-group point to a certain
degree of textual variation at an early stage of the development of m, in
contrast with its later unity. The above-mentioned differences were
institutionalized in the notation of the Masorah+, but a still larger
number of internal differences have not been recorded.
c. Origin
The almost complete identity of the medieval m with the proto-rabbinic

texts found in the Judean Desert and the assumption that this identity
derives from the copying from a single source, probably the Torah Scroll
of the Temple Court+ - pp. 30-31, leads to further thoughts about the
background of m. Since m contains a carefully transmitted text, that is
well documented in a large number of copies, and since it is reflected in
the rabbinic literature as well as in the Targumim and several JewishGreek revisions of
it may be surmised that it originated in protorabbinic circles. - pp. 29-30. Though this assumption cannot be proven,
it is supported by the late tradition that the Temple employed correctors
maggihim) who scrutinized scrolls on its behalf. - p. 30, n. 16
30 Differences of this type are included in Dfez Merino, Biblia babi/6nica and in the HUB+.
On the other hand, the internal unity of the Hebrew tradition is emphasized by E.J.
Revell, Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents (SBLMasS 4; Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1977).
37
However, there is a snag in this description. A strong desire for textual unity
existed within them-group, but this tendency could not erase the differences that
already existed among copies belonging to the same group. In the last centuries
before the Common Era and the first century of the Common Era, almost
identical copies, such as those found in the Judean Desert at sites other than
Qumran ..... p. 29, coexisted with less precise copies of the same group, the m-like
texts ..... p. 31. Phrased differently, the wish to preserve a unified textual tradition
remained an abstract ideal that could not be accomplished for the country as a
whole ...... Cohen, qdwst hnwsl1. The various texts of them-group from the Second
Temple period thus differed from one another, but over the course of the
centuries the number of these differences decreased due to the addition of
vocalization+, accentuation+, and the apparatus of the Masorah+. These notations
added an element of precision and prevented changes in consonants.
d. Evidence
The differences among the large numbers of medieval manuscripts have

been recorded in several editions and collections of variants. The first
five collections mentioned below pertain mainly to manuscripts written
after 1100, while the last two, more recent, collections also include
variants in early manuscripts. 31 All collections except for that of
Kennicott include variants in both consonants and vowels.
Min/:lat Shay (1626) by Yedidya Shelomo Norzi was printed in various Bible
editions starting with Mantua 1742-1744, among them the Rabbinic Bibles+, and
subsequently also in a separate edition (Vienna, 1813-1815). 32 Z. Betzer, Minhat
Shay on the Torah: Critical Edition and Notes (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies, 2005) provides a new edition of Min/:lat Shay to the Torah.
B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, vols. 1-11
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1776-1780) ...... plate 18*. This influential edition lists medieval variants from more than 600 different European manuscripts. The variants to
mare grouped around the text of van der Hooght's edition (Amsterdam/Utrecht,
1705) and those to w. are grouped around the text of w. from Walton's London
Polyglot (1653-1657). ..... p. 71. The details of the Hebrew manuscripts are
described in Kennicott's Dissertatio generalis and id., Dissertation.
J.B. de Rossi, Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti, vols. I-IV (Parma: Regio,
1784-1788; repr. Amsterdam: Philo, 1969). The variants collected in this edition
from several hundred manuscripts were meant to supplement the Kennicott
1776-1780 edition.
J.C. Doderlein & J.H. Meisner, Biblia Hebraica . . . ad fidem recension is
masoreticae cum variis lectionibus ... Benj. Kennicotto et f. B. de-Rossi (Halle /Berlin:
31
Apart from the editions mentioned in this section, the first printed editions contained
readings not known from other sources: ..... p. 70. It appears that the editors of these
editions had access to manuscripts that were subsequently lost.
32
See Y. Ofer, "Methods and Sources of Yedidya Shelomo Norzi in His Treatise Minhat
Shay," Textus 24 (2009) 287-312.
38
Libraria Orphanotrophei, 1818). This useful edition records the most important
variants from the editions of Kennicott 1776-1780 and de Rossi 1784-1788.
C.D. Ginsburg. - p. 73
HUB+ (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel). See the third and fourth apparatuses in
plate 30*. - ch. 9B2
BH+ and BHS+ (plates 27*-28*) quote from the collections of Kennicott 17761780 and de Rossi 1784-1788 without detailed information on the manuscripts
themselves. -Table 5
e. Significance of the Differences between Medieval Manuscripts

Scholarly opinions concerning the value of the differences among the
medieval manuscripts are divided. Many scholars, among them the
editors of BH and BHS, attach considerable significance to the readings
attested to in the above-mentioned collections, while others are more
reserved.
Scholars who value the readings contained in medieval manuscripts are
influenced by procedures developed in biblical criticism in the previous centuries
rather than by content considerations relating to the readings themselves. This is
due to the fact that manuscripts from the Middle Ages formed the almost
exclusive source of information for the study of Hebrew Scripture when critical
biblical scholarship began to develop, and every detail in those manuscripts
received attention that exceeded its real significance. Thus, in BH-BHS, the
number of manuscripts (according to Kennicott 1776-1780) evidencing a certain
reading is mentioned specifically.- p. 355; plates 27* and 28*; and Table 5:
Table 5
Quotations in BHfrom Medieval MSS (according to Kennicott 1776-1780)
Isa 1:3
Jer 14:14
Ezek 7:5
ca 30 MSS II} 50
Bet nonn MSS
ca 30 MSS Edd <!:
Explanation of the first item: Some 30 Hebrew manuscripts of m (according to the

edition of Kennicott 1776-1780) read 'O.!J1, "and my people," instead of 'O.!J, "my
people," in m (=codex L+).This reading is also reflected in II), 5, and D.
In the second half of the 20th century, the tendency to attach significance to the
differences among the medieval manuscripts has been strengthened by Cohen*
1986 who, by stressing the independence of the two main groups of medieval
texts, the Ashkenazi and Sephardic manuscripts, attempted to prove that each
group had a different background in the period preceding the Middle Ages. In
his view, the Sephardic manuscripts are close to the accurate Tiberian
manuscripts from the early Middle Ages- p. 72, while Ashkenazi manuscripts,
such as N and L18, reflect other ancient traditions, including different traditions
of pronunciation. For example, according to Cohen, the plene spelling tot,.,, lw , as
39
against N:'?, /', possibly reflects a different pronunciation tradition that has also
been preserved by the Samaritans. 33
Criticism has been voiced against the approach that attaches much
significance to the differences among the medieval manuscripts. CashenGottstein* claims:
The majority of the readings in manuscripts written in the Middle Ages were
created in that period and only a few of them reflect earlier traditions .
The broad basis of the textual attestation of some readings in contrast to the
narrow basis of other readings is immateriai. 34
Most of the agreements between medieval manuscripts and ancient sources
do not necessarily point to the ancient origin of the readings. Usually, the
agreement is coincidental since in the Middle Ages, as in antiquity, the same
processes that created secondary Hebrew variants and caused contextual
adaptations in the ancient translations were in operation. For some examples, see
Table 5 (p. 38) as well as:
Prov 15:20
,oN:
8 MSS of Kenn.
A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish man despises his
mother.
,ON: i1i1:::l
l::l, :::lN: notzr c;:,n J:::l (= <!: s)
A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son despises his
mother.
:::lN: notv' c;:,n
(=D)
This harmonizing reading could have developed independently in the Hebrew

sources and translations under the influence of the parallel hemistich+ and 10:1.
2. Vocalization
Kahle, Cairo Geniza; S. Morag, "nyqwd," EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1968) 5.837-57;
Schorch, Vokale.
Tiberian Vocalization: A. Dotan, "Masorah," Encjud (1971) 16.1401-82; id., "Deviation in

Gemination in the Tiberian Vocalization," studios Masoniticos (TECC 33; Madrid: Instituto
Arias Montano, 1983) 63-77; Gesenius-Kautzsch, 24-98; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, "The Rise
of the Tiberian Bible Text," in Biblical and .Other Studies (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1963) 79-122; J.L. Malone, Tiberian Hebrew Phonology (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993); S. Morag, "The Tiberian Tradition of Biblical Hebrew:
Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Features," P'raqim 2 (Heb.; Jerusalem, 1969-1974) 10544; M.J. Mulder, "The Transmission of the Biblical Text," in id., Mikra, 87-135; Penkower,
33 Cohen* 1986 distinguishes between "the authorized text of the Masoretic type" and "the
extraneous authorized traditions within the framework of the Masoretic type." The
latter group does not accurately reflect the Masorah lists, but ancient traditions that the
Masorah notations did not succeed in eradicating. These Masoretic notes are best
reflected in the Sephardic manuscripts.
34 Since a large number of manuscripts could have been copied from a single source, wellattested readings do not necessarily have more weight than singly attested readings.
Therefore, one should take into consideration the intrinsic value of each reading rather
than the number of manuscripts in which it is attested. In this context, scholars usually
quote the methodological rule formulated as manuscripta ponderantur, non numerantur,
"manuscripts are to be considered for their worth and not reckoned according to their
number." ..... p. 273
40
"Pentateuchal MS" (1988); id., New Evidence (1992); id., "Ben-Asher"; Rabin, mhqrym; A.F.
Rainey, "Ghost Forms in Massoretic Toponomy," in Avi Hurvitz Festschrift (ed. S.E.
Fassberg & A. Maman; Language Studies XI-XII; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2008) 28795; Yeivin, The Aleppo Codex of the Bible (-on. 45).
Palestinian Vocalization: M. Dietrich, Neue paliistinisch punktierte Bibelfraxmente veroffent/icht

und auf Text und Punktuation hin untersucht (Leiden: Brill, 1968); P. Kahle, Masoreten des
Westens, vols. 1-11 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927, 1930); E.J. Revell, Hebrew Texts with
Palestinian Vocalization (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970); id., Biblical Texts with
Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents (SBLMasS 4; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977).
Babylonian Vocalization: Biblia babi/6nica (Madrid: CSIC, 1976-1982) including several of the
Prophets and Hagiographa; Dfez Merino, Biblia babil6nica; P. Kahle, Der Masoretische Text des
A/ten Testaments nach der 0 berlieferung der Babylonischen Juden (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902; repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1966); id., Masoreten des Ostens (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913; repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1966); S. Morag, "The YemeniteTradition of the Bible: The Transition
Period," in studios Masoreticos (V Congreso de Ia IOMS) (ed. E. Fernandez Tejero; Madrid:
Instituto Arias Montano, 1983) 137-49; I. Yeivin, The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected
in the Babylonian Vocalization (He b.; Jerusalem: ha-Akademyah /a-Lashon ha- 'lvrit, 1985).
-4::rectronic toofs: The vocalization patterns are most easily searched in Tokhnit "HaKeter"Ma 'agar HaTanakh (Bar-IIan) and Accordance.
a. Background
Diacritical signs, which were added to the consonantal framework of m,
determined-at a rather late point in time-the reading of the text in a
final form, influenced by the example and pattern of the older Syriac
vocalization. - Gesenius-Kautzsch, 7h. This system has no parallel in
the other textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible. - p. 76 for w.. However,
to some extent such a comparison is irrelevant since most of the other
texts were no longer in active use after the first century CE as the
communities that had fostered them had ceased to exist. - pp. 174-5
The late origin of vocalization is evident from its absence in the texts from the
Judean Desert. Since antiquity, the main religious traditions of both Jews and
Christians have believed in the divine origin of the vocalization, and it was not
until the 16th century that a serious attempt was made to refute this supposition .
..... Elias Levita, Massoreth ha-Massoreth 35
The main function of the vocalization was to preserve the orally

transmitted reading tradition and to remove doubts regarding the
reading of the text when this allowed for more than one interpretation.
(m) or as
For example, should Dan 9:24 be read as
The reading tradition was a necessary component of m, since this
text was sparing in its use of matres Iectionis+, which facilitate the reading
35 The discussion which Elias Levita's book aroused is described by Steuernagel,
Einleitung, 84 ff. and Roberts, OTTV, 68-9.
IA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (!11-Group)
41
of the consonants. On the other hand, in Qumran scrolls that make

abundant use of matres lectionis - p. 101, vocalization was less required.
The authors of the biblical texts intended a certain understanding of
the consonantal framework, but differing reading traditions for the
biblical texts developed that were not identical to the authors' "original
intentions" because they had not been recorded. This issue is further
complicated by the existence of differing consonantal texts, each of which
was necessarily read and understood differently. The proto-Masoretic
texts institutionalized a reading tradition consonant with the public
reading of Scripture; however, differences were also visible within this
tradition, due to different consonantal readings and differing
understandings of the same consonantal text.
The analysis below refers to different reading traditions of the same
consonantal text. These slightly differing forms of reading are reflected in the
ancient versions, the second column of the Hexapla+, transliterated+ words in dJ
and the writings of Jerome+, and in the Middle Ages in the vocalized
manuscripts of m and the reading tradition of UJ. ...... Schorch* 2004. See, for
example, the differences in reading between !TI+ and dJ in Exod 22:12 (-o p. 65) and
in the following examples.36
Isa 9:7
Isa 24:23
!lH
(:Jpsr:J
dJ
8civaTov
!11 +
;:t (i1tv1::l1)
(i1i::lm) haUCbanah ...
the moon ... the sun
n'?tv)
dabar a word
i:;;JT deber pestilence
rrA.(v8os ... To TE'ixos
i19i"r;:t
i1p"p;:t
the brick ... the wall
Jer 23:17
m+
d)
haWbenah ... habomah
'i1
to those who despise me: "The LORD has spoken"
Tole; arrw80UIJ-EVOL; TOV A.oyov Kup(ou
'i1
to those who despise the word of the LORD
In spite of differences like these, the m-group (m +, ([ s D, kaige- Th,

Aquila+, Symmachus+) is remarkably uniform. By the same token, the
number of differences between m+ and w. is relatively small, allowing
us to posit a common reading tradition at the base of all these sources.
The importance of the vocalization comes to light in various areas:
The vocalization of m reflects ancient exegetical traditions as well as
the views of the Masoretes themselves. The Masoretes added their
vowels to a consonantal framework that they did not alter.
36 Vocalization differences between m and
dJ are mentioned by researchers from the 171h

century onwards, e.g. Cappellus, Critica Sacra (1650) 216-34.
42
Note, for example, the constant anomalous spelling of l:l

(in most printed editions:
e.g. Josh 10:1}, reflecting as it were
instead of
{ruMlayim. This vocalization indicates that the Masoretes found the ancient
not found in m) in their manuscripts, and that
form c'-,rv1i' (=
they added the hireq between the lamed and the final mem because they could not
change the consonantal text by adding a yod. The addition of a hireq was meant to
accommodate the pronunciation
which had become standard in the
Second Temple period, and was included also in the late biblical books
Chronicles and Esther.
Likewise, in most manuscripts of Joshua 21,
"its fields") was
written 49 times without a yod-which usually appears for a plural noun with the
third person fern. sing. pronominal suffix. On the basis of this evidence, Barr
suggested that at an earlier stage37 the text .of Joshua intended a form
migrasah, a singular noun with the third person fern. sing. pron. suffix, which had
been altered by the Masoretes to a plural form.3 8
Since a large number of words could be read in different ways, the

vocalization served the practical purpose of indicating precisely the way
in which the consonants should be read. This pertains also to the
designation of the grapheme iV as either sin or shin.
Finally, the vocalization had a function within a system of denoting
phonemes that is not usually connected to the meaning of the words,
namely the indication of the letters b, g, d, k, p, t as either having or not
having the dagesh lene.
There are many differences in vocalization among the various sources,
some affecting the meaning of the word, such as the above-mentioned
differences between m and , and others concerning details in the
representation of words according to the different systems of
vocalization. - c. Textual critics record these differences appearing
within the same system, but also between the systems (-the BH series+
and the fourth apparatus of the HUB+; see plates 27*-30*), but do not
deal with a description of the linguistic background of the vocalization, a
subject that is treated by linguists.
b. Systems of Vocalization
The signs for Hebrew vocalization, although apparently created between
500 and 700 CE, were only later developed into three full-fledged systems:
Tiberian (also named North-Palestinian) vocalization ..... plates 11 *-13*;
3? J. Barr,
in the Old Testament," JSS 29 (1984) 15-31.
38 In Barr's view, the Masoretic plural vocalization in Joshua was influenced by the later
development of that word. The original meaning of
as a collective noun ("a
common area near the walls") had already been forgotten by the time of the writing of 1
Chr 6:40 ff.
in which
was conceived of as a"single field."
43
Palestinian (also named South-Palestinian) vocalization ..... plate 14* (vowel

signs are placed above the consonants);
Babylonian vocalization, subdivided into "simple" and "compound."
..... plate 15*. In this system, the vowel signs are placed above the consonants. 39
In addition to these systems, a Tiberian-Palestinian system (the "extended"
Tiberian system) also exists, which is embedded, for example, in codex Reuchlin.
The opinions of scholars are divided concerning the nature of this vocalization .
..... Morag* 1968, 842
While different systems of vocalization existed from the outset, in due course
the Tiberian system was gradually accepted as authoritative in most Jewish
communities, slowly replacing the other systems. Consequently, these other
systems were unknown in the European centers of learning until the 19th century,
when manuscripts from Yemen and the Cairo Genizah+ were brought to the
West. Only the Yemenites continued to maintain the Babylonian tradition,
though not in its original form ...... Morag* 1983
c. Differences between the Vocalization Systems
The various vocalization systems differ from one another with regard to
the graphic form of the vowel markers, which were usually written either
below the consonants (the Tiberian system) or above them (the
Palestinian and Babylonian systems).
Beyond these graphic differences, the various systems also differ in some
linguistic features, such as relating to w, y, the sheva, and the phonological
and segol are
content of the vowels. For example, the two Tiberian signs
represented in the Babylonian system by the same sign, and in most of the
manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization qames and
as well as sere and
segol interchange ...... Morag* 1968 (comparative table, p. 850). Table 6 provides a
sample of the differences between the Tiberian and the Babylonian-Yemenite
systems. The latter is represented here with the Tiberian signs.
Table 6
Differences in Vocalization between Codex Land a Babylonian-Yemenite
Manuscript 40
L
Qoh2:7
10
13
22
3:16
18
ip::::l ;qpo
i1notv
11'.l?i::::l1
MS
Bod/. 2333
ip::::l
i1notv
11'-l?i::::l1
iDOtqi1
l:li1tq
4:4
39 The Palestinian and Babylonian systems of vocalization have become known in

particular from the Cairo Genizah +documents dating from the 9 1h to the 11th centuries.
40
According to Y. Ratzabi, "Massoretic Variants to the Five Scrolls from a Babylonian
Yemenitic MS," Textus 5 (1966) 93-113.
44
All the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible present the vocalization system
that was accepted by most Jewish communities, viz., the system of Aaron (son of
Moses) Ben Asher+. His vocalization system-a major branch of the Tiberian
system-is faithfully represented in the Aleppo codex+. 41 The system of the Ben
Naphtali family was used alongside the Ben Asher tradition albeit to a lesser
extent, and therefore it is not well attested. 42 Actually, these two systems were
closely related to each other, 43 and the differences between them (in 867 specific
cases, mainly in ga 'yot+) were recorded in the Sefer ha-Hillufim, "The Book of the
Differences," composed by Mishael ben Uzziel:
Table 7
Some Differences between the Systems of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali 44
Ben Asher
passim
passim
Gen 48:19
Exod 15:13
i::liDtl'
Ben Naphtali
i::liDib'
t:J.tJ'p.
,i
ell
,T ell
For a long period, scholars were of the opinion that the Ben Asher text
was represented faithfully in RB2+, upon which most subsequent Bible
editions were based. However, it has been demonstrated that this edition
does not reflect any specific manuscript (..... p. 72, n. 109) and that the
following codices better reflect the vocalization of the Ben Asher
tradition.
The Aleppo codex (indicated as M or A), written by Shelomo ben Buya'a
(consonants) and vocalized and accented by Aaron Ben Asher in approximately
925 CE.4 5 ..... plates 11 *, 12*. The latter also added the Masoretic notes. In the
41 However, some scholars claim that the Ben Asher system consists of various
subsystems ...... Dotan* 1971, 1983
42 It was suggested by Kahle among others that codex Reuchlin preserves the Ben
Naphtali system ..... p. 43, but this suggestion has been rejected by many scholars.
According to Penkower* 1988, the original text of codex C3, before its correction (see p.
45), closely reflects this system.
43 On the difficulties inherent in this description, see M. Cohen, "The Victory of the BenAsher Text: Theory and Reality," Tarbiz 53 (1984) 255-72 (Heb. with Eng. summ.); A.
Dotan, Ben Asher's Creed: A Study of the History of the Controversy (SBLMasS 3; Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1977); Barthelemy, Critique textuelle 1992, vii-xviii.
44 According to L. Lipschutz, Kitt1b al-Khilaf The Book of the Hillufim: Mishael Ben Uzziel's
Treatise on the Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali (Publications of the HUBP,
Monograph Series 2; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965) and id., Textus 4 (1964) 1-29. See also A.
Bendavid, "The Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali," Tarbiz 26 (1957) 384409 (Heb. with Eng. summ.).
45 The literature on the Aleppo codex is very extensive: H. Tawil & B. Schneider, Crown of
Aleppo: The Mystery of the Oldest Hebrew Bible Codex (Philadelphia: JPS, 2010); A.
Shamosh, Ha-Keter: The Story of the Aleppo Codex (Heb.; Jerusalem: Machan Ben-Zvi,
1987). The latter includes a thorough discussion on the question of whether its
vocalization, accentuation, and Masorah were really inserted by Aaron Ben Asher
JA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (In-Group)
45
Middle Ages, Maimonides already considered this manuscript a model codex, 46

of which three quarters has been preserved. 47 - The HUB+ and Cohen, Miqra 'ot
Gedolot "Haketer" are based on this manuscript. The text can be consulted in a
facsimile edition 48 and in http//:www.aleppocodex.org.
Corrections in a lOth century Torah codex from the Karaite synagogue in
Cairo (indicated as C3). According to Penkower* 1988 - n. 42, this codex agrees
in most cases with the Ben NaphtaJi+ tradition, but was systematically corrected
by Mishael ben Uzziel towards the Ben Asher tradition, as reflected in Mishael
ben Uzziel's Sefer ha-Hillufim. -Table 7. In Penkower's view, this codex, as
corrected, is the closest to the Aleppo codex from amongst the known "accurate
Tiberian manuscripts."
Codex Leningrad (St. Petersburg) Bl9A (indicated as L) from 1009. -plate
13*. This manuscript is known to have been corrected according to a Ben Asher
manuscript, and its vocalization is indeed very close to that of the Aleppo codex.
Codex L comprises the most complete source of all of the Bible books according
to the Ben Asher tradition, and therefore it has been made the base of BH-BHSBHQ and two editions by A. Ootan: Adi 1973 and the revised edition Ootan 2001.
-plates 27*-29*. Facsimile editions: 0.5. Loewinger, twrh nby 'ym wktwbym, ktb yd
lnyngrd B19A (Jerusalem: Makor, 1970); The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition
(ed. O.N. Freedman et al.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans & Leiden/New York/
Cologne: Brill, 1998).
Codex B.M. Or. 4445 (indicated as B), containing significant sections of the
Torah (from the first half of the lOth century).
The Cairo codex of the Prophets (indicated as C) from the 11th century
(- Goshen-Gottstein-Talmon, HUB, Ezekiel, xli). Publication: F. Perez Castro, El
cod ice de Profetas de el Cairo, Vols. 1-9 (Madrid: Insti tuto Arias Montano, 19791992). Facsimile edition: 0.5. Loewinger, Codex Cairo of the Bible from the Karaite
himself. See further the studies in Textus 1 (1960); Rabin, mhqrym; A. Dotan, "Was the
Aleppo Codex Actually Vocalized by Aharon ben Asher?" Tarbiz 34 (1965) 136-55 (Heb.
with Eng. summ.); I. Yeivin, The Aleppo Codex of the Bible, A Study of Its Vocalization and
Accentuation (Publications of the HUBP, Monograph Series 3; Heb. with Eng. summ.;
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1968); Breuer* 1976; M.H. Cashen-Gottstein, "ktr 'rm
whlkwt
spr twrh 1-RMB"M," Spr hywbll-r' y"d Soloveichik (Jerusalem/New York: Mosad HaRav
Kook/Yeshiva University, 1984) II.871-88; Glatzer, "Aleppo Codex"; Y. Ofer, "M.D.
Cassuto's Notes on the Aleppo Codex," Sefunot 4 (Jerusalem: Machan Ben-Zvi, 1989;
Heb. with Eng. summ.) 277-344; id., "The History and Authority of the Aleppo Codex,"
in Glatzer, Companion Volume (2002) 25-50; Cohen, "Introduction" (1992).
46 Mishneh Torah, II, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 8.4: "In these matters we relied upon the codex,
now in Egypt, which contains the twenty-four books of Scripture and which had been
in Jerusalem for several years. It was used as the standard text in the correction of
books. Everyone relied on it, because it had been corrected by Ben Asher himself who
worked on its details closely for many years and corrected it many times as they transmitted."- J.S. Penkower, "Maimonides and the Aleppo Codex," Textus 9 (1981) 39-128
47 Kept for centuries by the Jewish community of Aleppo, in Syria, this manuscript was
thought to have been lost in a fire in 19.48; however, most of the books were saved,
while the Torah and several other books were not retrieved. For a partial reconstruction
of the lost text, see Penkower* 1992.
48 M.H. Cashen-Gottstein, The Aleppo Codex (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1976).
46
Synagogue at Abbasita (Jerusalem: Makar, 1971). For doubts regarding the

attribution of C to Moses Ben Asher, see Penkower (notes 42, 46).
Codex Jerusalem 24 5702 (= Sassoon 507) of the Torah (indicated asS or the
"Damascus Pentateuch") from the lOth century.
Codex Sassoon 1053 of the Bible (indicated as 51) from the lOth century.
d. Character of the Tiberian Vocalization

Barr, Comparative Philology, 188-222; G. Khan, "Vowel Length and Syllable Structure in the
Tiberian Tradition of Biblical Hebrew," JSS 32 (1987) 23-82; S. Morag, "On the Historical
Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible," JAOS 94 (1974) 307-15; id., '"Latent
Masorah' in Oral Language Traditions," Sefarad 46 (1986)
Scholarly opinions are divided over the nature of the I iberian

vocalization, especially with regard to its authenticity, although in recent
decades it has been considered more trustworthy than it was in the first
half of the twentieth century. 49 Such questions arose especially in the
wake of the recognition of differences between the vocalization of m and
the traditions embedded in the transliterations+ of Hebrew words in the
second column of the Hexapla+, in, and in Jerome's+ commentaries:
Table 8
Tiberian Vocalizations Compared with Greek and Latin Transliterations50
m
Jer 3:12
Jer 32:7
Ps 18:34
Ps 31:3
ibid.
Ps 36:1
Ps 89:39
ibid.
1 Chr 1:53
t;'ll("")j?(1)
':'Jl'i
t;1'"l:;l.Pt;1;:1
(we)qartf'ta
dodeka
rag lay
'ozneka
ha??ileni
le 'ebed
hit 'abbarttf
zanabta
mib?ar
transliteration
carath
dodach
pqA.m
o(vax
EGLAT]Vl
(avae
\BAN
reglai
oznach
esileni
laabd
ethabbarth
zanath
mabsar
On the basis of differences of this type, various scholars, especially P. Kahle, 51

claimed that the Tiberian vocalization does not reflect the Scripture reading
49 L.L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology (SBLDS 34;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977) 179-97 provides a "Survey of Literature on the
Authenticity of Masoretic Vocalization."
5 0 The Latin words represent Jerome's transliterations. The Greek words (except for the
last example) are contained in the second column of the Hexapla. -Sperber, Grammar,
105-229; E. Bmnno, Studien iiber hebriiischen Morphologie und Vokalismus auf Grundlage der
Mercatischen Fragmente der zweiten Kolumne der Hexapla des Origenes (Abhandlungen fur
die Kunde des Morgenlandes XXVIII; Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1943).
47
tradition current in the time of the Second Temple, but rather an artificial
reconstruction devised at a later period by the Masoretes in order to represent the
presumed original pronunciation. This view was based especially on the double
representation of the letters b, g, d, k, p, t and the ending of the second person
masc. sing. pronoun
(_eka) in mas against 1;- (-ak) of the transliterations+ (see
the piyyu_tim, "liturgical hymns" and early prayers .... Table 8).
However, it has become clear that Kahle's position needs to be revised. It now
seems that some of the Tiberian vocalizations are not artificial, but rather
dialectical or late. In the case of the 2"d person masc. sing. pronouns, the Tiberian
tradition probably superimposed alternative forms on the earlier consonantal
framework. Indeed, there is sufficient ancient evidence in favor of _eka as an
ending for the pronominal suffix of the second person masc. sing. See the full
[-kah] in words such as in
}:zsdkh, 'bdkh, in llQPsa col. X
2, 3 ..... plate 8* and pp. 101-2. The longer and shorter forms probably coexisted in
early times (-+Barr, Variable Spellings, 114-27; Cross, ALQ 3, 174-7) and the long
forms were superimposed on the shorter ones (note the anomalous qame? under
the final kaph). While evidence from antiquity strengthens the Masoretic
pronunciation against other traditions, the Tiberian vocalization also reflects
traditions different from those known from early sources. For example, the
Tiberian forms
'attem, and
'atten/'atten, were pronounced as attima
and attina in the Samaritan tradition, although written as
and
and they
were even written as
'tmh, and
'tnh, in the QSP+. Furthermore, it
seems that the Tiberian tradition reflects a local pronunciation of the 8th and 9th
centuries in many details, while the above-mentioned Samaritan tradition, the
transliterations+ in \\3, the second column of the Hexapla+, and the writings of
Jerome sometimes reflect earlier or dialectical forms. For an example of the latter,
in Table 8,
abd, represented in m as
'ebed, is transliterated without an
auxiliary vowel; pqA.m, reglai, represented m as
raglay, is recorded in this
transliteration with an e (as in the Babylonian vocalization); and
represented in m as
mib?iir, is recorded in the transliteration with an a
sound (mabsar) as in the Babylonian vocalization. In all these details, the Tiberian
vocalization reflects forms that are late or dialectical, but not artificial.
3. Para- Textual Elements

L. Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen (Strassburg: Tri.ibner, 1891); J. Fraenkel, drky 11 'gdh
whmdrs (Tel Aviv: Yad /a-Talmud, 1991) 1.45--65; Ginsburg, Introduction; Kasher, Script;
Moshkowitz-Hamiel, Introduction; Tov, Scr. Prac., 131-218.
Having decided to insert no further changes into m, the soferim+ carefully

copied that text with all its details, including its special characteristics,
inconsistent orthography+-+ pp. 213-7, and even errors. Their insistence
51 Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 171-9 ("The Final Vowels in the Masoretic Text"). Contra Kahle:
E.Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Ltmguage Oerusalem: Magnes, 1982) 32-5 and the
bibliography there.
52 R. Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebriiisch (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969) 240; S.
Morag, "On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible," JAOS 94
(1974) 307-15.
48
upon retaining the exact form of m included attention to the smallest

details such as various para-textual elements that are exponents of scribal
activity and some that were not meant to be copied into a subsequent
copy ( c-f).
With the exception of the Ketib-Qere, these para-textual elements, such as the
division of the text into sections, are not unique to m. We now know from the
Judean Desert texts that these elements belong to the textual transmission of all
the ancient texts, both biblical and nonbiblical. Some of these elements are also
found in Hellenistic Greek texts, and probably derived from there.
The para-textual elements described below pertain to text division (a-b) and
various details within the text (c-j) and around it (g-k). The latter are mentioned
in the Masorah+ and midrashim+.
a. Text Divisions: Sections, Verses, Chapters, and Parashot

D. Barthelemy, "Les traditions anciennes de division du texte biblique de Ia Torah," in
Kard roVe; 0 ', Selon les Septante: Trente etudes sur Ia Bible grecque des Septante en hom mage ii
Marguerite Harl (ed. G. Dorival & 0. Munnich; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 27-51; L. Blau, "Massoretic
Studies, Ill.-IV.: The Division into Verses," JQR 9 (1897) 122-44, 471-90; Ginsburg,
Introduction, 9-108, 977-82; F. Langlamet, '"Le Seigneur dit a Moi"se ... ': Une cle de lecture
des divisions massoretiques," Melanges bibliques et orientaux en /'honneur de M. Mathias
De/cor (AOAT 215; 1985) 255-74; Martin, Scribal Character, 1.122, 5*-6*; G.F. Moore, "The
Vulgate Chapters and Numbered Verses in the Hebrew Bible," JBL 12 (1893) 73-8; Oesch,
Petuclza; Y. Ofer, "The Masorah: The Indication of the Parashiyyot," Megadim 2 (1987) 91-102
(Heb.); C. Perrot, "Petuhot et setumot. Etude sur les alineas du Pentateuque," RB 76 (1969)
50-91; id., "The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue," in Mulder, Mikra (1988)
137-59; Sperber, Grammar, 511-4; Tov, Scr. Prac., 131-66.
toofs: The text divisions into sections are searchable in Accordance, BibleWorks,
Logos, SESB.
Sections. Before m was divided into verses and, in the Middle Ages, also
into chapters, a different type of division into textual units was indicated
by section divisions, later to be named parashiyyot or pisqa 'at. The details
of the division of m into section units closely follow those of the protoMasoretic texts found in the Judean Desert. 53 In the late-medieval
manuscripts, the sections were indicated according to the Masoretic
written in the spaces
terminology by the letters (imm)5:) and
themselves. In modem editions, the section divisions in the Torah
usually reflect the system outlined by Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, II,
Hilkhot Sefer Torah, 8.--+ Ginsburg*, 977-82
A unit in m that began a new topic (a main subdivision) started on a new line,
while the last line of the preceding unit was left blank after the last word. For this
53 Oesch, Petucha, 288: " ... the section division of MurXII ... does not differ more from the
section division of m than that the individual manuscripts differ from one another."
This identity pertains also to MasLevb and MasEzek.- Talmon, Masada, 40-50, 59-75
IA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text On-Group)
49
practice, the Masoretes used the term i1mnEl i1iDiEl, parasah petu!wh, "open section
(or: paragraph)." - plate 12*. A smaller unit was indicated by a spaceamounting to nine letters according to the later tradition-within the line. This
unit was named i101no i1iViEl, parasah setumah, "closed section (or: paragraph)." plate 15*
The paragraphing system of rn and the exegetical decisions behind most sense
divisions are ancient. For a description of the ancient evidence and the differences between the various sources, see pp. 198-201 and Tov, Scr. Prac., 143-63.
Verses. The Masoretes indicated the division into verses with a silluq
accent indicating the end of a verse. When the Qumran scrolls were
written, this division was still transmitted orally. 54 -+ pp. 198-9. The
concept of a verse (pasuq) is known from the Talmud, 55 and the rabbis
were used to a fixed division of the biblical text into verses.-+ Blau* 1897.
The Masorah+ and the Masoretic handbooks+ mention the number of
verses in the book, the middle of the book according to the number of
verses, etc.
Chapters. The chapter division-a relatively late invention-was
established around 1204-1205 by Stephen Langton, subsequently
appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, England, while lecturing at the
University of Paris, probably on the basis of divisions accredited to an
earlier archbishop, Lanfranc (died 1089). The earliest manuscript
containing Cardinal Langton's division is the Paris manuscript of l) from
the 13th century. This division was transferred from l) to the manuscripts
and editions of the Hebrew Bible. 56 Among other things, these divisions
were transferred to RB1 + (1516-1517) and RB2+ (1524-1525), albeit with
many mistakes. 57
The Paris manuscript of l) was also the source for the numbering of the
verses in the manuscripts of m.
Since the division into chapters was prepared a very long time after the
composition of the biblical books, it reflects late exegesis. Apparently, Langton
54 Parallel verses within m are sometimes indicated in different ways. -+Sperber*. For
example, Gen 25:14-15a form one verse in 1 Chr 1:30 and Ps 96:8-9a likewise form only
one verse in 1 Chr 16:29.
55 M. Meg. 4.4 "He that reads in the Torah may not read less than three verses"; see further
b. Meg. 3a; b. Ned. 37b; Gen. Rab. 36.8.
56 See Moore*; Ginsburg, Introduction, 25-31; A. Landgraf, "Die Schriftzitate in der
Scholastik urn die Wende des 12. zum 13. Jahrhundert," Bib 18 (1937) 74-94; B. Smalley,
The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2"d ed.; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame, 1964) 221-4; J.H.A. van Banning S.J., "Reflections upon the Chapter Divisions of
Stephan Langton," in Method in Unit Delimitation (ed. M.J. Korpel et al.; Pericope 6;
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007) 141-61.
57 See the analysis of J.S. Penkower, "The Chapter Division in the 1525 Rabbinic Bible," VT
48 (1998) 350-74. Van Banning, "Reflections" (n. 56) 151-6 discusses the mistakes in the
Paris manuscript of D.
50
made an effort to create chapters of fairly equal size and, as a result, the chapter
division is occasionally artificial and not without mistakes. For example, it would
have been more appropriate to begin the present chapter 5 of Deuteronomy with
4:44, where the second discourse of Moses begins (thus m). Likewise, the last
verses of Deuteronomy 11 (11:31-32) actually belong to the subject matter of the
next chapter. 58 The various editions of m differ from one another slightly in the
chapter division, verse division, and the numbering of the verses. 59 ..... pp. 4-6
Parashot. The Torah has also been subdivided into larger units
according to the reading tradition in the synagogue: 54 (or 53) parashot
(sections for the Sabbath readings) according to the annual Babylonian
cycle and 154 or 167 sections (named sedarim) according to the triennial
Palestinian cycle (-+Perrot* 1988). Differences between the manuscripts
in parashot and sedarim were reviewed by Ginsburg, Introduction, 32-65.
b. Pisqah be 'em;>a' pasuq
R. Kasher, "The Relation between the Pisqah be 'em!)a pasuq and the Division into Verses in
the Light of the Hebrew MSS of Samuel," Textus 12 (Heb. with Eng. summ.; 1985) ::ll;l-i1J; P.
Sandler, "l}:zqr hpysq' b 'm?' hpswq," Sefer Neiger Oerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1959) 222-9;
Talmon, Text, 369-82.
The great majority of section divisions in m coincide with the ends of

verses but, in addition, the Mp+ to Gen 4:8 notes 28 instances of a pisqah
be 'em;>a' pasuq (= pbp), "a section division in the middle of a verse." The
Mp to Gen 35:22 lists 35 such instances, indicated in some or all of the
manuscripts and editions by a space the size of either an open or a closed
section. -+ p. 48. For example,
Gen 4:8
Cain said to his brother Abel.

And when they were in the
field ... (this pbp is not found in all manuscripts; ..... p. 221)
Gen 35:22
While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben went and lay with
Now
Bilhah, his father's concubine; and Israel found out.
the sons of Jacob were twelve in number.
1 Sam 16:2
Samuel replied: "How can I go? If Saul hears of it, he will kill
me."
The LORD answered: "Take a heifer with you, and
say: 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD."'
The indication of a pbp signifies a break in content similar to that

indicated at the ends of sections (note the term) as described in a. 60
58 Likewise, the last verse of Exodus 21 (21:37) and the first ones of ch. 22 (22:1-3) actually
constitute one unit (thus the section division), now divided into two segments by the
chapter division. This pertains also to the last verses of Deuteronomy 16 (16:21-22)
together with 17:1, as well as to Gen 1:1-2:3 (thus indicated by the section division), and
!sa 9:1-10:4.
59 For an extensive analysis of these issues, see Finfer, Massoret Ha-Torah (p. 5, n. 5) 45-83.
60 On the other hand, according to Talmon* the pbp reflects a scribal-exegetical system of
cross-references to expansions of the verse in question found elsewhere in Scripture. For
IA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (ln-Group)
51
Since most cases of a pbp refer to a break in content, 61 their notation

clashed with the verse division. Accordingly, the initially oral tradition of
denoting verses must have derived from a source different from that of
the written section notations. -+ pp. 198-9. The pbp indications are
unevenly distributed in the Bible, since 65 percent of their occurrences
(according to the Aleppo+ codex) occur in one book, viz., 1-2 Samuel.
c. Inverted Nunim
L. Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen (Strassburg: Triibner, 1891) 40--45; FreedmanMathews, Leviticus, 12; Ginsburg, Introduction, 341-5; S.Z. Leiman, "The Inverted Nuns at
Numbers 10:35-36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad," JBL 93 (1974) 348-55; Lieberman,
Hellenism, 38-43; Yeivin, Introduction, 46-7.
Inverted nunim (also named nunim menuzarot, "separated" or "isolated"

nunim) are found in manuscripts and printed editions before and after
the "Song of the Ark" in Num 10:35-36 and in Ps 107:23-28 (in codex L+
and BHS before vv 21-26 and 40). 62 The sign found in the manuscripts
resembles an inverted nun, though tradition also describes it as a kaph.
Actually, these signs are misunderstood scribal signs for the removal of
inappropriate segments, viz., the Greek letters avTLO"L yfla, antisigma [ ) ]
and a[ yfla, sigma [ ( ], known from Alexandria and the Qumran scrolls .
..... p. 204. Indeed, in b. Shabb. 115b, the nunim are called
"signs."
..... Lieberman* and Tov, Scr. Prac., 201-3
The para-textual elements described in c-f were not meant to be
copied into the subsequent copying. Rather, the sections indicated with
inverted nunim and extraordinary points were meant to be removed.
However, they were maintained perpetually in the m tradition.
d. Extraordinary Points (Puncta Extraordinaria)
L. Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen (--+ p. 47) 6-40; R. Butin, The Ten Nequdoth of the Torah
(Baltimore: Furst, 1906; repr. New York: Ktav, 1969); Ginsburg, Introduction, 318-34;
Lieberman, Hellenism, 43-6; Sperber, Grammar, 516-8; Yeivin, Introduction, 44-6.
example, according to him, the mentioned occurrence of the pbp in Gen 35:22 refers to 1
Chr 5:1, that in 2 Sam 7:4 refers to Ps 132:1-5, and the one in 1 Sam 16:2 refers to the
apocryphal Psalm 151.
61 The indication of the silluq+ accent in the spaces (subsequently erased), indicating a pbp
in the Aleppo codex+, shows that such a break is intended.
62 An additional case, not found in the manuscripts, is mentioned in Min!wt Shay+ and the
Mp of RB2 on Gen 11:32 Jlr;T:t "in Haran," with Rashi as the earliest source. The inverted
nun in this place possibly indicated that the verse did not appear in its correct place, for
a chronological calculation reveals that the death of Terah mentioned here ought to
have appeared after the following sections ...... Ginsburg, Introduction, 345
52
In fifteen places, 63 m indicates dots above letters or words and in one

place (Ps 27:13) also below them. 64 Although these dots originally
denoted the erasure of letters- p. 203, traditionally they were explained
as indications of doubtful letters. - Butin* and Ginsburg*, quoting
rabbinic sources. 65 Ten of these instances are found in the Torah, four in
the Prophets, and one in the Hagiographa. The earliest list of these
instances is found in Sifre 69 to Num 9:10 (the ten instances in the Torah);
the full list is in the Mm+ on Num 3:39. The high percentage of instances
in the Torah is remarkable. For example:
Gen 16:5
Gen 19:33
Gen 33:4
(wbnyk)
(wbquimh)
iiipiD'1 (uiyqh-zv)
A similar scribal habit of indicating the omission of letters or words was

employed in various ancient biblical and nonbiblical sources .... p. 203. The fact
that some ancient sources actually lack these letters or words serves as support
for the assumption that they were meant to be omitted, e.g.:
j"iiil(i (ui firn)-the word is lacking in m s as well as in mMSS

( 'si-}-m
b. B. Bat. 79a) reads
's
One of the dotted words (ii6ii, lirnfi, in Isa 44:9) occurs in 1Qisaa as a supraNum 3:39
Num 21:30
linear+ addition without dots

The agreement of all m manuscripts regarding such small details as the
writing of dots points to the internal unity of the m-group. De Lagarde
considered them so significant that he based a theory on them that all the
manuscripts of m had been copied from a single source ..... p. 171
It is not always clear why the scribes of m omitted the specific letters and
words included in the traditional list. In some cases, scribes must have
recognized them as errors. In other cases, elements may have been deleted upon
comparison with the source manuscript. In any event, the number of canceled
letters in m is very small compared with that in most Judean Desert manuscripts.
e. Suspended Letters (Litterae Suspensae)

McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 225-9.
63 Gen 16:5, 18:9, 19:33,33:4, 37:12; Num 3:39,9:10,21:30, 29:15; Deut 29:28; 2 Sam 19:20; !sa
44:9; Ezek 41:20, 46:22; Ps 27:13.
64 The positioning of the dots does not make a difference for their meaning ..... p. 203
65 At the same time, the wording in 'Abot R. Nat shows that the habit of canceling letters
and words by means of dots was known to some rabbinic sources:
The words "unto us and to our children" (Deut 29:28) are dotted. Why is that?
... This is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me, "Why did you write in
this fashion?" I shall say to him: "That is why I dotted these passages." And if
he says to me, "You have written well," I shall remove the dots from them
( 'Abot R. Nat. A, 34; p. 51 in Schechter's edition; cf. y. Pesah. 9.36d).
6 6 In the forerunner of m, this word was possibly considered inappropriate, superfluous,
or incorrect and was therefore omitted. Indeed, the word is contextually difficult.
lA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (!TI-Group)
53
In four words in m, a letter has been added as a "hanging" -supralinear,

suspended-letter meant as a correction. In Judg 18:30
(Menaseh,
Manasseh), a suspended nun corrected an original
(Moseh, Moses) to
67
as indicated by the vocalization of m.
This addition was
apparently meant to correct an earlier reading that ascribed the erecting
of the idol in Dan to one of the descendants of Moses (b. B. Bat. 109b). The
addition therefore indicated a deliberate content change (theological
correction).-+ pp. 242-56
Elsewhere, three guttural letters that were possibly wrongly omitted
by earlier scribes were likewise suspended: Ps 80:14
Job 38:13 r:::J"l)iDi;
ibid., v 15
In many Qumran texts, laryngeals and pharyngeals
were also added supralinearly as corrections.-+ Table 22 on pp. 105-6. A
different explanation for one of the three verses is found in b. Qidd. 30a,
according to which the 'ayin in Ps 80:14
"marks the middle of the
Psalms."
f. Special Letters
Kasher, Script, 183-227; Elias Levita, Massoreth ha-Massoreth, 230-33; Roberts, OITV, 31; S.
Schnitzer, "'wtywt gdwlwt wz 'yrwt bmqr '," Beth Mikra 89-90 (1982) 249-66; Sperber,
Grammar, 518-20; Yeivin, Introduction, 47-8.
Large or uppercase letters have been indicated in most manuscripts of m

and many editions in order to emphasize a certain detail. So, for
example, the first letter of a book (Genesis
Proverbs, Canticles,
Chronicles) or section
Qoh 12:13), the middle letter in the Torah (11m
Lev 11:42), and the middle verse in the Torah (n'-,'ni11 Lev 13:33) are larger
than the surrounding letters. 68
B. Qidd. 66b, Sof 9.1-7, and the Masorah also indicated a few
imperfectly written letters, such as Num 25:12 c1'-,iD, written with a
"broken waw," that is, a waw with a crack in the middle. It is not clear
from which period the scribal practices described here derive. The
occurrence of some of these special letters (e.g. Gen 30:42
Num
27:5
Deut 29:27 c;:,?iD"1) is probably random. As in many Qumran
scrolls, the special letters may have no significance, having merely
67 Many manuscripts and editions of m (as well as D) read the corrected form "Moses."
The two forms are also reflected in different manuscripts of
Mwu<JT], "Moses," in MS
A and MavaaaT], "Manasseh" in MS B.
68 Cf. b. Qidd. 30a: "The ancients were called soferim because they counted every letter in
the Torah. They said that the waw in pril (Lev 11:42) is the middle consonant in the
Torah, tv-,i tv-,i (Lev 10:16) the middle word and n'?mm (Lev 13:33) the middle verse."
Cf. F.!. Andersen & A.D. Forbes, "What Did the Scribes Count?" in D.N. Freedman et
al., Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992)
297-318.
54
differed coincidentally from those surrounding them (not all are

indicated in BHS). Similarly insignificant are a few small letters.
At least some of the special letters (for lists see Elias Levita*) go back to
ancient texts. Some of them are mentioned in the Talmud, e.g. b. Menah. 29b
("when they <the heaven and earth> were created," Gen 2:4) explained as
two words, :1:!, "with the letter he," and
"He created them."
g. Ketib-Qere
J. Barr, "A New Look at Kethibh-Qere," OTS 21 (1981) 19-37; M. Breuer, "'mwnh wmd'
bnwsb hmqr '," Death 47 (1978) 102-13; P. Cassuto, "Qere-Ketiv et Massora Magna dans Ie
manuscrit B 19a," Textus 15 (1990) 84-119; Maimon Cohen, The KethiQ.and Qeri System in the
Biblical Text: A Linguistic Analysis of the Various Trad.itions Based on the Manuscript 'Keter Aram
Tsova' (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007); Gordis, Biblical Text; Y.M. Grintz, mbw y mqr (Tel
Aviv: Yavneh, 1972) 60-82; S. Levin, "The 'ip as the Primary Text of the 1"Jn," Hagut Ivrit
be'Amerika I (Heb.; Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1972) 61-86; Moshkowitz-f:lamiel, Introduction, 1.7286; Y. Ofer, "Ketiv and Qere: The Phenomenon, Its Notation, and Its Reflection in Early
Rabbinic Literature," Leshonenu 70 (2008) 55-73 (Heb.); H.M. Orlinsky, "The Origin of the
Kethib-Qere System: A New Approach," VTSup 7 (1960) 184-92; Morinus, Exerc., 603-34;
Sperber, Grammar, 493-510; J. Simonis, Analysis et explicatio lectionum masorethicarum,
Kethiban et Krijan vulgo dictarum, Ea forma, qua il/ae in textu 5. exstant, Ordine alphabetico
digesta (Amsterdam: Wetstein, 1753); E. Tov, "The Ketiv-Qere Variations in Light of the
Manuscript Finds in the Judean Desert," in id., HB, GB, and Qumran (2008) 199-205; G.E.
Wei!, "Qere-Kethib," IDBSup, 716-23; Yeivin, Introduction (1980) 52--62.
toors: Ketib-Qere variations are searchable in Accordance, BibleWorks, Logos, SESB.
Qere notations are found only in medieval manuscripts of m and printed

editions, and not in ancient scrolls. In a large number of instancesranging from 848 to 1566 in the different sources-the Mp notes that one
should disregard the written form of the text (in the Aramaic language of
the Masorah: ::::l't:1f, k'tib, "what is written") 69 and read instead a different
word or words (in Aramaic: 'Jj?, qere, or '!)?, qeri, "what is read").7
Different systems are used in manuscripts and editions for recording the
K-Q since the vocalization of the Ketib has not been transmitted in the
manuscripts. The vowels of the Ketib forms are hypothetically provided
by Simonis* 1753, Ginsburg (- p. xxi), and computer modules such as
Accordance, BibleWorks, Logos, and SESB. In the manuscripts and most
editions (e.g. Ginsburg, the BH series, HUB, Cohen, Miqra 'ot Gedolot
"Haketer"), the vowels of the Qere are superimposed on the consonants of
69 A few of the Qere words have been indicated in some Masorah manuscripts as yatir,
"superfluous" (usually: yatir yod, or yatir waw), i.e., when reading, one must disregard
the yod or waw. For an example, see Josh 10:24 (p. 216, Table 6).
70 In early manuscripts, the Qere was sometimes denoted by a circullus or, more
frequently, a vertical sign similar to a final nun or possibly zayin (Yeivin* 1980, 52). This
system is also followed in BHQ.
55
the Ketib, while the unvocalized Qere is presented elsewhere, mainly in

the margin as part of the Mp+? 1
Josh 6:13
mK
mO
2 Sam 22:51
mK
mO
'1'?1;:r
l1'?i1 (= li'?;:r)
(consonants= Ps 18:51
(=
The evidence for the Ketib and Qere in the manuscripts of m is relatively late,
but the practice itself was already mentioned in the rabbinic literature (the
opinions of the medieval commentators are quoted in Sperber* and MoshkowitzI-:Iamiel*). For example, b. 'Erub. 26a notes that in 2 Kgs 20:4 "It is written 'the
city,' but we read 'court'." Manuscripts and editions likewise indicate here: Ketib
,,lm, "the city," Qere
"court." 73
Rabbinic literature also mentions 'al tiqre formulas phrased as "do not read ( 'al
tiqre) X, but Y," but their nature differs from the Qere system. These formulas do
not necessarily reflect readings that would have been known to the rabbis.
Rather, they point to an exegetical play on words, especially words with an
added or omitted mater lectionis+ that would have been possible in the context.74
Occurrences of the "constant Qere" (Qere perpetuum) are not indicated

with a Masoretic note, but in such cases the Ketib is vocalized with the
on the basis
vowels of the Qere. Thus mK ii1i1', YHWH, is vocalized as
of its Qere
'adonay (or, when appearing next to
as
representing
'elohim).75
71 In some modern editions (e.g. Koren, Adi, Dotan 2001), the unvocalized but accented
Ketib forms are included in the text, while the vocalized and accented Qere is recorded
in the margin. In the NJPS 2nd ed., 1999, both forms are juxtaposed in this way in the text
itself. In Ginsburg's edition, the vocalized Qere is contained in the apparatus under the
text. In other editions (Breuer, Horev, and Jerusalem Crown), both the Ketib (in the text)
and the Qere (in the margin) are vocalized with the vowels of the Qere. European
translations usually follow the Qere (-+Daley, Textual Basis, 171-202); when following
the Ketib, the translations rarely doq.tment their choice, although NJPS 2nd ed. does
remark on such choices. -+ pp. xx-xxii for bibliographical references to the editions
72 Accordingly, the Ketib and Qere probably represent two different readings.
73 For further examples, see b. Yoma 21b (on Hag 1:8); b. Ned. 37b; Gen. Rab. 34.8; Sof 7. See
also Midrash Qere we-la Ketib included in the collection of A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch 5
(Vienna: Herzfeld & Bauer, 1873; repr. Jerusalem: Sifre Vahrman, 1967) 27-30.
74 The 'a/ tiqre formulae have been collected by N.H. Torczyner, "1 tqr '," Eshko/,
'n?yqlwpdyh ys'r'lyt (Berlin: Sholem, 1932) ll.376-386 (Heb.) and classified by A.
Rosenzweig, "Die Al-tikri-Deutungen," in Festschrift zu Israel Lewy's siebzigstem
Geburtstag (ed. M. Brann & J. Elbogen; Breslau, 1911; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972) 20453. For example, b. Ber. 64a: "R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hanina: The disciples of
the wise increase peace in the world, as it says, 'And all thy children shall be taught of
the LORD, and great shall be the peace of thy children.' Read not ('a/ tiqre) banayik, 'thy
children,' but bonayik, 'thy builders,' or 'those of you who understand'" (lsa 54:13). It
appears that this formulation, as with several others, is based on a variant reading
known from the supralinear addition of a waw in 1Qisaa.-+ Talmon, Qumran, 71-116
75 Special scribal practices for writing the Tetragrammaton+ are also known from a
Qumran scroll. The dicolon ( : ) before the occurrences of i11i1' in 4QRPb (40364)+
56
In some instances, the Mp+ directs the reader to read a word that is not
included in the text. Qere wela ketib indicates a word that is "read but not
written." In such cases, only the vocalization is included in the text.76
2 Sam 8:3
mK
,,,
to restore his power at the river (P)e(r)a(t)

mQ
Judg 20:13
m:l
... Perat
(=
[ 5 D and 1 Chr 18:3)
!11 K
and the (s)o(ns) of Benjamin would not listen

sons of
(=
5 [D)
In other instances, the Mp instructs the reader to disregard a word

included in the text. Ketib wela' qere indicates a word that is "written but
not read." In these cases, the word is not vocalized.7 7
2 Sam 13:33
Mp:
i"':;!"(
':;1
is written and not read"
Background. The Ketib-Qere instances have been classified into

different categories in Okhlah we-Okhlah+, Massoreth ha-Massoreth, and
studies by Cordis*, Cassuto*, and Mairnon Cohen* 2007.78 While
different explanations for the background of this notation have been
given, the first one is preferable.
a. The Qere Represents a Reading Tradition
Undoubtedly, the Qere represented a reading tradition (Levin*; Breuer* 1978; Barr*;
Maimon Cohen*, 311; Tov* 2008) that accompanied the written text, rather than a
living written recording of differences. The strongest argument in favor of this
view is the terminology used referring to a spoken word (Qere) as opposed to a
written one (Ketib). This assumption may be supported by the fact that the K-Q is
the only para-textual feature of !11 that is not paralleled by the Judean Desert
scrolls (-+ Ofer* 2008, 59), and therefore probably developed after the 1"' century
CE.
The fact that the manuscripts never contain more than one Qere word also
points to a reading tradition, which is naturally limited to one word ...... Barr*
1981. According to this assumption, the Qere words derived from an obligatory
text such as an exemplary manuscript. Such a source could also have contained
76
77
78
probably resembles the Qere, indicating that the word should be read differently or not
at all. In many Qumran manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton+ is written in paleo-Hebrew+
characters or indicated with four dots (Tetrapuncta+).-+ Tov, Scr. Prac., 218
Several examples are mentioned in b. Ned. 37b-38a and Sof 6.8. Okhlah we-Okhlah+, list
97 provides the complete evidence.
The complete evidence is found in Sof 6.9 and Okhlah we-Okhlah+, list 98.
In addition to the examples of Ketib-Qere given in this
many instances are
mentioned elsewhere, especially inch. 4C (see Index 3).
57
inferior variants, and therefore not all the corrections of this type were
necessarily preferable.
The Written Qere Corrects the Ketib as Indicated by the Masorah

According to this assumption, the Qere words were originally added to the
written text as corrections replacing the Ketib text. Maimon Cohen*, 311 points to
the early linguistic background of many Ketib forms replaced by later Qere forms.
Further, the perpetual Qere of YHWH as 'adonay (p. 55) is a correction, as are the
replacements of possibly offensive words with euphemistic expressions. 79 The
main examples are:
Deut 28:27 80
mK
mO
c'?D.tJ:n
cint:l:n
and with hemorrhoids (?)

and with tumors (?)
Deut 28:30 81
mK
mo
i1J:::l::ltD'
he shall enjoy (?) her

he shall lie with her
However, some aspects of the assumption of a correction are problematical.

Exactly the same words-with identical meaning-sometimes form the Qere
word in one verse, and the Ketib word in another one. For example,
Gen 39:20
Judg 16:21, 25
mK
mO
mK
mO
(= w.)
There are also many similar Ketib-Qere interchanges in both directions for the
pairs C',J.tl
n,:::ltD
While several instances of specific Ketib words were "corrected" by a Qere,
identical words have not been corrected elsewhere. For example,
Gen 24:33
mK
mO
1'JD'?)
C'i;;tO:::l J1ilot:::l
Gen 50:26
was placed
CtD,'1 (= w.) was placed
(w. CtD, '1)
The Qere words include several forms that are less plausible than the Ketib
with regard to either context or grammar. For example,
Gen 8:17
2 Sam 3:25
mK
mO
mK
mo
It is unlikely that the presumed correctional activity would have been

limited to similar letters (the Qere words are almost always very similar to the
Ketib word).
79 See b. Meg. 25b: "Our rabbis taught: wherever an indelicate expression is written in the
Torah, we substitute a more polite one in reading. <Thus for> m'?Jtv', 'he shall enjoy (?)
her,' <we read> ;"ll::l::ltD', 'he shall lie with her'." See list 2 in Cordis* and Schorch,
Euphemismen. For further instances, see Sof. 9.8. For other euphemisms used in biblical
manuscripts, see pp. 250-52.
80 The same Ketib-Qere is found in 1 Sam 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4, 5.
81 The same Ketib-Qere is found in lsa 13:16; Jer 3:2; Zech 14:2.
58
y. The Qere Word Served as a Written Variant to the Ketib

The Qere could have been a variant found either in the same manuscript or in a
different source. 82 Indeed, most of the K-Q variants pertain to small differences,
especially interchanges+ of similar letters, which are also known as variations
between manuscripts. For example,83
Josh 3:16
Josh 4:18
Josh 15:47
2 Kgs 16:6
Prov 20:21
mK
mO
mK
mO
mK
at Adam
from Adam(= <r: 50)
the boundary
the great(=
([50)
arid the Arameans (= <r:MSS5 oMSS)
and the Edomites (= <r: 0)
mO
mK
mO
mK
mO
n'?n:Jf.l
n'?i'T::li.l
According to this explanation, one need not look for a logical explanation for
each of the Qere words, since these are mere variants that are not necessarily
better in the context than the Ketib words. The Qere forms, originally serving as
optional variants, were later taken as corrections to the body of the text. This
assumption is supported by evidence from ancient sources that include certain
Qere words in their text. For example, 84
Lev 11:21
mK
mO
2 Sam 23:13
,.,
not
has; literally: for him =
thirty
three=
<r:o Ps-JN5o
<r: 5o; 1 Chr 11:15
Against the view that the Qere forms are variants, one may claim that the
existence of merely one variant is illogical. A counterargument could be the
assumption that the manuscript containing the Ketib forms was collated
an authoritative source, or against the majority form among several sources. 5
8. Intermediate Positions
Several intermediate views have been suggested. According to Cordis*, scribes at
first wrote marginal corrections, but later this type of notation was also used for
denoting variants, which in due course became obligatory. The situation differed
from book to book, as some books contain more Qere forms than others. The fact
that the Torah contains very few Qere forms may point to its stable condition.
82 According to Orlinsky*, the Qere words were originally written in the margins of the
. manuscripts as variants culled from one or more sources.
83 See also the examples mentioned elsewhere in this section and in Index 3.
84 See Cordis*, 55-6.
85 This assumption may be supported by the story of the three scrolls of the Law found in
the Temple Court+, as analyzed on p. 176.
59
According to another intermediate view, all the Qere words were initially
textual variants that were subsequently taken as corrections on the basis of their
location in the margins of the manuscripts.
h. Sebirin
Ginsburg, Introduction, 187-96; Yeivin, Introduction, 62-4.
Between 70 and 200 cases of Sebirin notes are found in the various
manuscripts of m. For example,
Gen 49:13
1n::li'1
and his border shall be at Sidon
Sebirin
1l'
(=tu.)
These notes resemble the Qere (several Qere words have indeed been
transmitted in some sources as Sebirin and vice versa), but the Sebirin
notes have no binding force. Sebirin notes were probably based on earlier
exegetical traditions, rather than variants.
A Sebirin note refers to a word or form that is difficult in the context, and
indicates that one could "suggest" (sbr) that another word should be read in its
stead, even though such an assumption would be incorrect. The Masoretic
terminology is therefore:
l'i'::lO, "it has been suggested wrongly." As a
result, the Sebirin note strengthens m and serves exclusively as a caveat to the
reader. For example,
Jer 48:45
fire went forth (masculine form of the verb)
Sebirin
(feminine form)
The implication of the Sebirin note is that although
usually appears as a
feminine noun (including in the parallel text Num 21:28), the masculine form of
the verb is nevertheless correct. ..... p. 335 (emendation+)
i. Corrections of the Scribes
W.E. Barnes, "Ancient Corrections in the Text of the Old Testament (TiJ.<.I:<un Sopherim),"
JTS 1 (1899-1900) 387-414; Barthelemy, Etudes, 91-110; Geiger, Urschrift, 308-45; Ginsburg,
Introduction, 347-67; McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim; W. McKane, "Observations on the
Til:<l:<fme S6perim," in On Language, Culture and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (ed. M.
Black; The Hague: Mouton, 1974) 53-77; Lieberman, Hellenism, 28-37; E.Z. Melamed, Bible
Commentators (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975) 1.56-61; Morinus, Exerc., 574-7; Yeivin,
Introduction, 49-51; M.A. Zipor, "Some Notes on the Origin of the Tradition of the Eighteen
Tiqqune S6peri'm," VT 44 (1994) 77-102.
Like the Qere and Sebirin forms, the tiqqune soferirn, "corrections of the
Scribes," are not witnessed in early sources. But unlike these two groups,
the tiqqune soferim are not even included in medieval manuscripts, since
they are recorded only in the apparatus of the Masorah. These
"corrections" are words in m referred to in the Masorah (Mm) as
60
representing early corrections by the soferim+. It is surpnsmg that the

soferim, who transmitted the text very carefully, were also involved in
making corrections, but possibly these were not real corrections (see
below). For these "corrected words," the Mm records the words that
represent the presumed original, uncorrected text.
According to various sources, the Scribes corrected the text in several
places. 86 The list in the Mekhilta to Exod 15:7 contains the following
eleven instances (in this sequence in the edition of Horowitz): Zech 2:12;
Mal 1:13; 1 Sam 3:13; Job 7:20; Hab 1:12; Jer 2:11; Ps 106:20; Num 11:15; 1
Kgs 12:16; Ezek 8:17; Num 12:12.87
A few of these alleged original readings. mentioned by the Masorah are
known as variants from other sources. For example, "J'l', quoted in Exod. Rab.
13.1, is also reflected in
oMSS:
"Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye, ,J'l'" (m+ in
Zech 2:12); R. Joshua son of Levi said: "This is a correction of the
Scribes, for it was <once> written as "J'l', my eye <that is, the eye of
God>."
Further:
1 Sam 3:13
m+
Mm
Job 7:20
!:li1'? c'?'?po ;:,

that his sons committed sacrilege (cursed?) at will(?)
1'J:::l !:l"i1'?N c'?'?po ;:, (=
8E{w)
that his sons cursed God
1'J:J
m+
l'ttVo'? "'?l' i1'i1l't1
Mm
l'\iVO'? T'?l' i1'i1l'\1 (=
... and I shall be a burden for myself

ETTL aol)
... and I shall be a burden for You
Even though several scholars accept the tradition of the corrections having
been made by the soferim as being basically correct, probably most corrections
were not carried out in reality; tradition merely reflects an exegetical Spielelement
(thus McCarthy*) and "a midrashic fancy" (Barnes*, 387). This view implies that
most "corrections" use exegetical manipulation to alter readings, extant or
imaginary, that were considered irreverent. Indeed, for some corrections it is
86 8 (7) according to Sifre 84 (pp. 81-2) to Num 10:35, and 11 (9) according to Mek. Shirata 6
to Exod 15:7 (the various manuscripts of these compositions contain different items),
and 18 according to Midrash
16 to Exod 15:7; Okh/ah we-Okh/ah, list
168; Ginsburg, Massorah, II.710.
8 7 For these verses, the rabbis use two main terms, viz., :nn::>OT O'Tl'::>, "the verse uses a
euphemism," in the early sources (Sifre 84 [p. 80) to Num 10:35; Mekhi/ta to Exod 15:7)
and tiqqun, "correction," in the later lists. The two terms may reflect ancient conflicting
views of the phenomenon, that is, either euphemisms or ancient textual corrections
(thus Lieberman*, 31). However, since the terms are used in lists of different dates, it is
more likely that the differences in terminology reflect a development in conception
(thus McCarthy*). Probably, the tradition originally referred to mere "euphemisms"
(substitutions) that only afterwards were taken as corrections (for a similar
development, see the discussion in g on the practice of the Qere).-+ Zipor*
61
improbable that the original text would have read as the Masorah claims. See, for
example, Gen. Rab. 49.7, included in the list of the Masorah:
"The men went on from there to Sodom, while Abraham remained
standing before the LORD" (Gen 18:22 m+, l\J). R. Simon said: "This is a
correction of the Scribes for the Shekhinah was <actually> waiting for
Abraham."
It is unlikely that the original text would have read "while the LORD remained
standing before Abraham," as implied by Gen. Rab. and the Masorah.
In one instance, the correction refers to an element that was considered
irreverent towards Moses, viz., in Num 12:12:
"( 11 Aaron said to Moses ... ) 12 ... as one dead, who emerges from the
womb of his mother,
... with half his flesh, 1itv::::l, eaten away" (m+)
According to the Masorah, m + included corrections of earlier readings,

mother," ... and 1:litv::::l, "our flesh."
"our
Another common characteristic of the corrections of the Scribes is the fact that
most of them correct merely one or two letters (as in the case of the Qere),
principally the pronominal suffix. If the corrections had represented real changes
in the text, it is hard to believe that the correctors would have limited themselves
to such small details.
Although the practice of correcting a text out of respect for a god or

gods is also known in the Hellenistic world, 88 and although corrections
such as these were inserted into the biblical text (-+ pp. 242-56), only
some of the "corrections of the Scribes" point convincingly to a correction
procedure carried out not by the soferim but by earlier generations.
j. Omission of the Scribes
b. Ned. 37b mentions five words as being l:l'il10 i1c:l'.tl, 'i_t_tur soferim,
"omission of the Scribes," in which, according to tradition, the Scribes
omitted a waw conjunctive.89 For
Gen 18:5
m+
b. Ned.
,i::::l.lm
,i::::l.lln
then go on= ([o D

and then go on = lll liJ
([Ps-J 5
k. Layout
While many of the poetry texts in Scripture are written as running texts
in the medieval manuscripts of m, these manuscripts presented the
88 The Alexandrian grammarians sometimes marked a word or phrase in the Homeric
writings as "inappropriate" (cmpETTES") and corrected it accordingly. These corrections
include simple changes such as
"to us," which was corrected to
"to you
(plur.)." For example, according to the grammarian Zenodotus it was not befitting for
Aphrodite to carry a chair for Helen and thus he deliberately altered the text of Iliad
III.423-6.-+ Lieberman*
89 Th e soferim actually may have corrected the text in these places, as distinct from the Qere
readings that were merely written in the margin (d. Yeivin, Introduction, 56).
62
books (Job, Proverbs, and Psalms), some songs of the Torah, the song of
Deborah, and the acrostics in Lam 1--4, as poetry. The manuscripts differ
among themselves with regard to their systems of presenting the text,
and these differences were multiplied in modern editions.-+ p. 5
The tradition of m developed an intricate system of presenting certain
poetry sections in a special layout, continuing systems known from the
Judean Desert scrolls. 90 -+ pp. 201-2 and Tov, Scr. Prac., 166-76
4. Accentuation
M. Breuer, .t 'my hmqr b-k"' sprym wbspry 'm"t Oerusalem: Jerusalem College Press, 1982); Y.
Breuer, "Dissonance between Masoretic Accentuation and Vocalization in Verse Division of
the Biblical Text," Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift: Collected Papers in Jewish Studies
Oerusalem: Akademon, 1992) 191-242; M. Cohen, "Subsystems of Tiberian 'Extramasoretic'
Accentuation and the Extent of Their Distribution in Mediaeval Biblical Manuscripts,"
Leshonenu 51 (1987) 188--206 (Heb. with Eng. summ.); id., "Introduction" (1992) 16*-21 *;
M.B. Cohen, The System of Accentuation in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Milco, 1969); id.,
"Masoretic Accents as a Biblical Commentary," JANESCU 4 (1972) 2-11; A. Dotan, "The
Relative Chronology of Hebrew Vocalization and Accentuation," PAAJR 48 (1981) 87-99;
id., "The Relative Chronology of the Accentuation System," Language Studies, 2-3 (Heb.
with Eng. summ.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987) 355--65; T. Jansma, "Vijf teksten in de Tora met
een dubieuze constructie," NTT 12 (1957-1958) 161-79; S. Kogut, "The Authority of
Masoretic Accents in Traditional Biblical Exegesis," in Fishbane, Sha a rei Talman (1992)
153*--65* (Heb. with Eng. summ.); id., Correlations between Biblical Accentuation and
Traditional jewish Exegesis: Linguistic and Contextual Studies (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994);
A. van der Kooij, "Nehemiah 8:8 and the Question of the 'Targum'-Tradition," in Tradition
of the Text, 79-90; M. Medan, 'Tmym," EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958) 3.394-406;
G.E. Weil et al., C01zcordance de Ia cantilation du Pentateuque et des cinq Megillot (Editions du
C.N.R.S.; [Paris], 1978); id., Concordance de fa cantilation des Premiers Prophetes, Josue, juges,
Samuel et Rois (Editions du C.N.R.S.; Paris, 1982); Yeivin, Introduction, 157-296; id., Masorah,
131-247.
tooCs: The accents are most easily searched in Tokhnit "HaKeter"-Ma 'agar
HaTanakh.
Among the textual witnesses, m is the main source that developed an

apparatus of musical-exegetical instructions for the reading of the text in
the form of "accents." 91 These accents, also named cantillation signs
90 The layouts of the poetry sections in the medieval manuscripts and printed editions, as
well as their relationship to statements in rabbinic literature, were analyzed in detail by
Breuer, Aleppo Codex (1976) 149-89. In general terms, these manuscripts follow the
prescriptions of rabbinic literature, but these prescriptions leave room for interpretation, and the manuscripts vary accordingly. The layouts described in rabbinic texts
are based on the fixed arrangement of inscribed and uninscribed segments, and run
parallel to system 2a of the Qumran scrolls, and possibly also to system 3 . ..... p. 202. The
rabbinic sources refer explicitly to the lists of the kings of Canaan Oosh 12:9-24) and of
the sons of Haman (Esth 9:6-9) as well as three songs in the prose books of the Bible
(Exod 15:1-18, Deut 32:1-43, and Judg 5:2-31), but not to the Psalms ...... plates 11-12*
91 For similar instructions for the reading of Ul, see p. 76.
63
_f 'amim), which add an exegetical layer and musical dimension to

the consonants and vowels, have three functions:
to direct the biblical reading in the synagogue with musical guidelines;

to denote the stress in the word;
to denote the syntactical relation between the words as either disjunctive or
conjunctive.
The system of accentuation also includes three signs that are not
accents, since they do not have a musical function: maqqeph, a conjunctive
sign, paseq or pesiq, a sign denoting a slight pause, and ga 'yah (literally:
"raising" of the voice), also named metheg, a sign indicating a secondary
stress in a word.
The tradition of the accents is ancient, as is apparent from y. Meg.
4.74d (with differences also b. Meg. 3a mentioning
'P05j; b. Ned. 37b;
Gen. Rab. 36.8- van der Kooij*):
"They read from the book, from the law of God, translating it and
giving the sense; so they understood the reading" (Neh 8:8) ... "And
giving the sense"-this refers to the accents,
Over the course of the years, a tradition developed regarding how to
understand the syntactical relation between words. This understanding,
sometimes reflected in the Talmudic literature, has been laid down in the system
of accents. In rare cases, the accentuation and vocalization reflected different
exegetical traditions (Y. Breuer* 1992).
In a very few cases, tradition remained divided regarding this syntactic
relation. Thus b. Yoma 52a-b (cf. Gen. Rab. 80.6; y. 'Abod. Zar. 3.41c) mentions five
concerning
verses in the Torah "of undecided syntactical adhesion" (.l.l,::li11i1'-,
the type of relation between a word and that preceding or following it. -+
Jansma*. For example, in Exod 17:9,
"tomorrow," can be linked to either the
preceding or following part of the verse. The verse reads as following in m
(according to the
on
... i1lJ:J:Ii1
'-,l)
1no
cn'-,i1
,J., ,n:J ...
Pick some men for us, and go out and do battle with Amalek.
Tomorrow I will station myself on the top of the hill ... = lll. MS, and Mek.
Amalek 1.
The other option is:

Pick some men for us, and go out and do battle with Amalek
tomorrow. I will station myself on the top of the hill ... (m MSS; cf. 5)
As with vocalization, there are three systems of accentuation:

Tiberian, Palestinian, and Babylonian. In addition, in the Tiberian
system, the
books (acronymic for Job, Proverbs, and Psalms) are
accented with a separate system. Within the Tiberian system itself, there
are indications of the existence of different subsystems (Cohen* 1987,
1992). The names and forms of the accents are listed in plate 16*.
64
The accents are subdivided into two classes, disjunctive and

conjunctive. The disjunctive accents are again subdivided into four
groups in accordance with the duration of the pause:
"emperors" (silluq+, 'etnah),
"kings" (segolta , shalshelet, zakeph, .tip/Ja),
"dukes," and "counts."
Some of the conjunctive accents ("servants") are: munab, mehuppakh or
mahpakh, merkha , darga , and 'azla '. In the main, the disjunctive and conjunctive
accents have a genuine meaning of connection or separation, although frequently
the notation of the accents is a mere formality since they appear in every verse in
a somewhat fixed sequence.- Weil*, 1978, 1982
Ancient exegesis is often reflected in the indication of the type of relationship
between the words. For example:
Exod 24:5
C'i:l i1W'?
cn:n 1nJT'1 A n'?D 1'?!!'1
And they offered burnt offerings A and sacrificed

offerings of well-being to the LORD, bulls.
A priori, t:l'i:l, "bulls" could be explained as referring either to the verse as a
t:l'nJT, "offerings of well-being to the
whole, or to the preceding words i11i1''?
LORD." The accents on n'?D ( 'etnab) and i11i1''? (tipha) show that the Masoretes had
the second explanation in mind. Had they intended the first one, the accent on
n'?D would have been a rebia ,a disjunctive accent denoting a slighter pause. 92
Isa 1:9
1J"i1 cio::l A
i'iiD 1J'? i'mi1
'i1 '?1'?
Had not the LORD of hosts left us some survivors, A we

would have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah.
In this verse, the Masoretes divided the sentence as indicated, but various
sources have the break after i'iiD (that is, " ... a remnant, A we would almost be
like Sod om .. ."):b. Ber. 19a, 60a; <r:; Rashi and Luzzatto ad lac.- Kogut* 1994, 113
Several medieval and more recent commentators such as Luzzatto (on Isa 1:9)
use the accents in their commentaries as a basis for their interpretations. 93
The exegetical dimension of the accentuation can also be recognized through a
comparison of differences between m and ancient sources such as IIJ (differences
of this type are recorded by the BH series and the HUB+):
Exod 1:19
m+
1i'?'1
A i1Ji1 mn '::l
For they <the Hebrew women> are lively;

midwife comes to them they give birth.
II)
TLKTOUO"LV yap rrpl.v

ETLKTOV.
before the
ElGEA8{iv rrpoc; auTOs TCts lla(ac; Kal.
For they give birth before the midwives come to them.

And they gave birth.
1i'?'1 A
i1Ji1 mn '::l
92 For both explanations, see b. Hag. 6b. See also the interpretations of Ibn Ezra and
Nachmanides on the biblical text and Rashi on b. Hag. 6b. _, Kogut* 1992, 156*
93 See Yeivin, Introduction, 218-21; Kogut* 1992, 1994; M.B. Cohen* 1969, 1992.
65
The translator's view of mn ("lively" or "vigorous") coincided with his

syntactical understanding.
Exod 22:12
!1l
lfi
!'\'?
t:ll'\ (=([ON S)
11 1-!,' 1i1l't:::l"
If it was torn, he shall bring it <the remains> as
evidence. 11 He need not make restitution for the prey.
(Eav 8E 8T]plciAWTOV YEVT]TaL)
aim'w ETTL
Kal.
ouK arroTELaEL
(If it was torn,) he shall bring him <the owner> to the

prey. 11 He need not make restitution.
c'?w l't'? A i1Elit:li1 1 .p 1i1l't:::l"
eN:
(cf. ([Ps-J [doublet] lJ)
Mek. Nezikin 12 knows both possibilities.
The understanding of the relation between the words in this verse is connected to
the difference in vocalization (1p /1.p) ...... Prijs, Judische Tradition, 6-8; Kogut* 1994,
131-3
Isa 3:11
m+
1'? i1iD.Il" 1"1" '?1oJ ::;, 11 .lli .lltvi'? "11'\ ...
Woe unto the wicked! It shall be ill with him. 11 For

what his hands have done shall be done to him.
lfi
oval. T<fl
II TTOVT]pa KaTa TO Epya TWV XELpwv aUTOU

UUT<fl.
1'? i1iD .ll" 1"1" '?1oJ::;,
.lli 11 .lltvi'? "11'\ ...
Woe to the transgressor! 11 Bad things shall happen to

him according to the works of his hands.
5. Apparatus of the Masorah

Barthelemy, Critique textue/le 1992, lxix-xcvii; L. Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen
(Strassburg i. E.: Tri.ibner, 1891); Breuer, Aleppo Codex (1976) 193-283; Cohen, "Introduction," 22*-28*; A. Dotan, "Masorah," Encfud Oerusalem: Keter, 1971) 16.1401-82; Elias
Levita, Massoreth ha-Massoreth; P.G. Kelley et al., The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,
Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998);
C. McCarthy, "A Comparative Study of the Masorah Magna and Parva of the Book of
Deuteronomy as Attested in the Leningrad and Madrid M1 Manuscripts," in S6fer Malzlr,
177-86; Y. Ofer, The Babylonian Masora of the Pentateuch: Its Principles and Methods (Heb.; The
Academy of the Hebrew Language, Sources and Studies VI, A New Series; Jerusalem:
Magnes, 2001); A. Rubinstein, "Singularities in the Massorah of the Leningrad Codex
(B19a)," JJS 12 (1961) 123-31; id., "The Problem of Errors in the Massorah Parva of Codex
B19a," Sefarad 25 (1965) 16-26; Sperber, Grammar, 520-53; G.E. Wei!, "La Massorah," REf
131 (1972) 5--104; id., "Les decomptes de versets, mots et lettres du Pentateuque selon le
manuscrit B 19a de Leningrad. Un essay d'arithmetique des scribes et des massoretes,"
Melanges Barthelemy, 651-703; Wonneberger, Understanding BHS, 61-8; I. Yeivin, "mswrh,"
EncBib (Heb.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1968) 5.130-59; id., Introduction (1980) 33-155; id.,
Masorah (2003) 32-127.
toors: Tokhnit "HaKeter"-Ma 'agar HaTanakh, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan;

Miqra 'at Gedolot "HaKeter" Project, based on codex A+.
66
a. Content
The term Masorah (or masoret) 94 refers to an apparatus of instructions for
the writing and reading of the biblical text. This apparatus was prepared
by generations of Masoretes and was written by way of convention
around the text (plates 11*-13*, 15*, 23*) without implying that any of its
components (such as the K-Q notes) were once written in that place in
ancient manuscripts. The purpose of this apparatus was to ensure that
special care would be exercised in the transmission of the text.
According to tradition, the Masorah stemmed from the time of Ezra, called a
"an expert scribe" in Ezra 7:6, and from the time of the soferim in
subsequent generations. See b. Qidd. 30a: "The ancients were called soferim
because they counted every letter in the Torah." The early origin of the activity of
the soferim is established by the parallels between remarks in rabbinic literature
and several of the notes in the Mm, for example, on Gen 2:4:
i"iiO i;lb,
All toledot, "generations," found in Scripture are defective <i.e. n1'-,1n

or n1'-,m >, except two, viz., "These are the m1'-,1n, twldwt, of
(Ruth 4:18) and the present instance (Gen. Rab. 12.6; similarly: Mm).
The activity of the soferim was continued by the Masoretes. The identity of the
men of both groups is not known to us.
Since the purpose of the Masorah was to ensure the precise transmission of
the biblical text, it focused on the aspect most problematic for scribes, that is,
orthography. The Masoretes and their followers described the rules of biblical
orthography in various treatises and they wrote marginal notes on the exceptions
to these rules in Aramaic in the biblical manuscripts, as in the case of the
aforementioned spelling of m1'-,m, recorded in the Mp as M'-,o (twice with waw).
The main focus of their attention was directed toward how many times a certain
spelling occurred in a given biblical book or in Scripture as a whole. For example,
qhol (such as
Elias Levita* remarked that words belonging to the patterns
slwm; :Jiii?, rvb) and
qtlwn (such as ]iii!, zkntm) are usually written
plene, with a waw. 5 Consequently, the Masorah focused on the exceptions to this
rule, indicating the words belonging to these patterns that were written
defectively. Thus on ji:;:>r, zkrn in Exod 28:12 (twice), 29, the Masorah (according
to V) notes on S, that is, jiir occurs three times in Scripture in its defective, }:zs(r),
orthography. By the same token, ":is: and similar forms are usually defective, with
94 There is no consensus concerning the vocalization of ;"Ti10t:l and its exact meaning. See
W. Bacher, "A Contribution to the History of the Term 'Massorah'," JQR 3 (1891) 78590; Roberts, OTTV, 42-3; Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 115-16. Most scholars explain the word
as ;"T"JiOr,l (others: ;"T"JiOr;l), designating an apparatus of instructions accompanying the
transmission of the biblical text. However, Z. Ben-Hayyim, "mswrh wmswrt," Leshonenu
21 (1957) 283-92, explains the word as i1}iOf:l, "counting" or "enumerating," based on
the meaning of the root in the Samaritan Targum. In his view this word is related to the
tradition that the soferim counted all the words and verses in the Bible, as explained in
the next paragraph.
95 Massoreth ha-Massoreth, p. 57 in Ginsburg's edition.

the result that for Amos 9:9
seven times plene (ml '): '?o i.
-,;9:, ypwl
67
the Masorah notes that this word occurs
The apparatus of the Masorah, which guided many generations of

scribes, consists of two main parts:
a. The main apparatus of the Masorah, written in an extended set of notes in
the side margins of the text. This apparatus is named mt:lp ii"1100, Masorah
tftannah (Masorah parva = Mp) and contains notes on the following matters:
The number of specific occurrences of spellings or vocalizations, e.g. on Deut
32:39
it notes:
1m ';, that is, this particular form occurs only here in
Scripture ('; = n.,, "not extant <elsewhere>") and recurs once without a
conjunctive waw:
Oer 49:11).
The Qere forms, Sebirin, and all para-textual elements described in 3. These
elements are not part of the running text of unvocalized Scripture scrolls, and
they are known only from the Mp.
Special details such as the shortest verse or the middle verse in the Torah as
a whole or in a specific book .... 3J, verses that contain all the letters of the
alphabet, etc.
b. The
ii"1100, Masorah gedolah (Masorah magna = Mm), written in the
upper or lower margins. This apparatus is closely connected to the Mp as its
function is to list in detail the particulars mentioned by way of allusion in the Mp,
especially the verses referred to by that apparatus. For example, if the Mp states
that a certain word occurs eight times in Scripture, the Mm provides a list of the
verses. It does not note chapter and verse, but rather quotes a key word or phrase
from the verse in which the word under discussion is found. 96 This apparatus
also contains the "cumulative (or: collative) Masorah
ii"1100, Masorah
me$arepet), that is, the Masorah that contains lists of certain phenomena, e.g.
different types of hapax forms.97
In addition, many manuscripts contain various Masoretic lists, such as lists of
the differences between Ben Asher+ and Ben Naphtali+, at the beginning and/or
end of the biblical books. The lists at the ends of books in RB2+, culled from
various sources by the editor of that edition, are more extensive than the lists in
biblical manuscripts. This collection, .named n:l"1ll0, Ma
became known
later as Masorah Jinalis. In addition to the lists of features such as mentioned
above, notes at the ends of books in RB2+ record the number of letters, words,
and verses in each Scripture book. For example, at the end of Genesis the final
Masorah reads: "the total number of verses in the book is one thousand, five
hundred and thirty four."
The details of the Mp and Mm differ from one manuscript to the nextespecially in V, late manuscripts, and RB2+-and are not always consistent or
precise even within a single source ..... Sperber*; Rubinstein* 1961, 1965. This
imprecision reveals itself in incorrect listings of the number of occurrences in the
text and in the incongruity between the notes of the Mp and the biblical text.
96 These details are recorded in the
as well as in modern editions of the
Masorah and some Bible editions.-+ c
97 See D. Lyons, The Cumulative Masora, Text, Form and Transmission, With a Facsimile
Critical Edition of the Cumulative Masora in the Cairo Prophets Codex (Beer-Sheva: Ben
Gurian University of the Negev Press, 1999).
68
Examples of inconsistency include the following: while one occurrence of a word

may be accompanied by a note of the Masorah, another occurrence of the same
word will not be remarked upon.98
The inconsistency in recording the number of occurrences derives from the
complicated development of the Masorah. Originally, it was written together
with the text of the manuscript to which it belonged, but at a later stage the
Masorah was transmitted separately and was even copied in the margins of other
manuscripts. The situation did not improve with the invention of printing, since
the notes of the Mp in RB2+ were collected from different manuscripts.
The Masorah continued to develop from the 6th to the 10th centuries, until it
reached the form known from the manuscripts. As with the vocalization and
accents, it was transmitted in three main systems: Tiberian, Palestinian, and
Babylonian. The best known is the Tiberian _Masorah that, together with the
Tiberian system of vocalization and accentuation, has been accepted by every
Jewish community. According to Breuer* 1976, 281-4, the known forms of the
Masorah derived from that of the Aleppo+ codex, which is more precise than all
the others.
The Aramaic terms of the Masorah are listed and explained in BHBHS-BHQ; Yeivin, Introduction, 80-120; id., Masorah, 73-95; Wonneberger*; Cohen, Miqra 'at Gedolot "Haketer"; and Kelley*.
b. Masoretic Handbooks
The Masoretic apparatuses were developed far beyond the activity of the
first generations of Masoretes into collections of notes written not only
alongside the text, but also in separate volumes or handbooks of detailed
observations on the biblical text. These included, above all, observations
on orthography.
The orthographic practices of m were described by Elias Levita*. The most
extensive Masoretic handbook is Okhlah we-Okhlah containing various types of
lists, such as pairs of related hapax words occurring once with and once without a
waw (..... Deut 32:39 on p. 67). The book is named after this list, which begins with
("her I the eating"; 1 Sam 1:9) and
("and eat!"; Gen 27:19). S.
the pair
Frensdorff's edition is based on the Paris manuscript99 and that by F. Diaz
Esteban reflects the Halle manuscript. 100 Okhlah we-Okhlah (MS Paris) contains
374lists together with 24 additional items, totaling 398 lists ...... Table 9
98 For example, the note on Gen 1:1
"in the beginning," indicates that this word

occurs 5 times in the Bible, three times appearing at the beginning of verses. The five
verses referred to are Gen 1:1; Jer 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34. However, the formulation of the
. Mp in codex L appears in three different forms in Jer 27:1, 28:1, and 49:34, while there is
no remark at all in Jer 26:1. See the facsimile edition of L by Loewinger (p. 45) and not
the printed form of the Masorah in BHS. In Deut 22:14, the Masoretic note on K':.:101 in L
is ri
(elsewhere, no other defective forms appear), but the word is plene in L.
99 Das Buell Och/ah W'ochlah (Hannover: Hahn'sche, 1864; repr. Tel Aviv: Tsiyon, 1969).
lOO Sefer Oklah we-Oklah (Madrid: CSIC, 1975).
n"
69
Table 9
Lists in Frensdorff's Edition of Okhlah we-Okhlah

List 117
List 118
List 338
List 339
List 341
List 356
A waw lacking at the beginning of the Ketib word,

but added in the Qere, e.g. 2 Kgs 4:7 mK "::l"J:::l, mQ
TJ:::l1 (12 cases).
A waw written at the beginning of the Ketib word,
but omitted in the Qere, e.g. 2 Sam 16:10 mK "::>1,
mQ "::> (11 cases).
Verses in which the second word is i10iD, e.g. Gen
29:3 (10 verses).
Verses containing i1Ji1 and afterwards i1Ji11, e.g.
Gen 31:51 (5 verses).
and afterwards
e.g.
Verses containing
Judg 3:24 (8 verses).
Verses in which I:Jj occurs three times, e.g. Gen
24:25 (12 verses).
Additional Masoretic works, early and late (-+ Yeivin, Introduction,

128-55):
Diqduqqe ha- ye 'amim by Aaron Ben Asher+ (first half of lOth century).
Masoret Seyag La-Torah by Meir ben Todros ha-Levi Abulafia (11801244).

'Eyn ha-Qore' by Yequti'el ben Yehuda ha-Naqdan (probably from the
second half of the 12th century).
Shay (1626) by Yedidyah Shelomo from Norzi.-+ p. 37
c. Editions of the Masorah
The Masorah of RB2+ was published with a translation and notes by
Ginsburg 1880-1905 (p. xxxvii), tog.ether with various Masoretic treatises.
S. Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna (Hannover: Cohen & Risch, 1876; repr.
New York: Ktav, 1968) contains an index of the Masorah of RB2.
Since the Masorah of RB2, culled from different manuscripts, is
imprecise, scholars often prefer to consult the Masorah of a specific
manuscript, especially those contained in the following four editions:
Wei!, Massorah Gedolah ... Leningrad (1971).-+ p.liv
D.S. Loewinger, Massorah Magna of the Aleppo Codex Oerusalem: Shrine of the
Book, 1977).
M. Breuer, The Masorah Magna of the Pentateuch by Shemuel ben Ya 'aqov (Ms.
r.'?), vols. 1-2 (New York: Lehman Foundation, 1992).
E. Fernandez Tejera, Las Masoras del libra de Genesis: C6dice Ml de Ia Universidad Complutense de Madrid (TECC 73; Madrid: CSIC, 2004); see also additional
volumes in this series.
70
d. Importance of the Masorah
The main importance of the apparatus of the Masorah is for the internal
study of m, and not the comparison of m with the other textual witnesses.
6. Editions ofm
L. Blau, "Dr Ginsburg's Edition of the Hebrew Bible," JQR 12 (1900) 217-54; Cohen,
"Consonantal Character" (1981 ); id., Miqra 'ot Gedolot "Haketer"; id., "Introduction";
Ginsburg, Introduction (1897) 779-976; id., Jacob Ben Chajim Ibn Adonijah's Introduction to the
Rabbinic Bible (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1867; repr. New York: Ktav,
1968); L. Goldschmidt, The Earliest Editions of the Hebrew Bible, With a Treatise on the Oldest
Manuscripts of the Bible by Paul Kahle (New York: Aldus, 1950); Goshen-Gottstein, Biblia
Rabbinica (1972) 5-16; id., "Editions" (1992); Habermann, Ketav; M.J. Mulder, "The
Transmission of the Biblical Text," in id., Mikra, 87-135 (116-21, 133-4); H.M. Orlinsky,
"Prolegomenon" to Ginsburg, Introduction (1966) x-xviii; Penkower, Jacob Ben-Hayyim
(1982); id., "Bamberg's First Bible Edition and the Beginning of His Printing Press," Kiryat
Sefer 58 (1983) 586-604 (Heb.); id., "New Evidence" (1992); id., "Ben Asher" (1999); B. Pick,
"History of the Printed Editions of the Old Testament, Together with a Description of the
Rabbinic and Polyglot Bibles," Hebraica 9 (1892) 47-116; C. Rabin, "mqr', dpwsy hmqr',"
EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1968) 5.368-86; Roberts, "Hebrew Bible"; Walton,
Polyglotta.
toofs: Tokhnit "HaKeter"-Ma 'agar HaTanakh, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan; part
of the Miqra 'of Gedolot "HaKeter" Project, based on codex A.
The text of m has been printed many times from various sources, 101
usually without critical principles.102
Since the Tiberian branch of the Ben Asher+ system of m became the
determinative text in Jewish tradition, it was followed in all editions of m
and, to all intents and purposes, that text served as the printed text of
Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture as a whole. RB2+ was very influential among
these editions, and served almost as the "received text" of the Bible. Goshen-Gottstein* 1992. As a consequence, most of the subsequent
editions are based on this edition. However, in the second half of the 20th
century several editions appeared that are based on a single manuscript
(see below). The history of the printing of m is described by Ginsburg*
1897, Rabin*, and Mulder* and only the major facts are mentioned here
(the central editions are listed on pp. xx-xxii). For a list of all the editions
of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, see ch. 9 and Table 1 there (p. 344).
101 The printed editions of rn are often erroneously regarded as representing "the Bible,"
even though they represent only one textual tradition, albeit a central one. - ch. 964
102 see, for example, the introductory words in the Appendix to the Koren 1962 edition
explaining its textual basis: " ... on the basis of the opinions of the Masoretes, the
grammarians, and the interpreters and according to what was found in the majority of
the manuscripts and printed editions accepted as authoritative, and not as a slavish copy
of a specific edition or manuscript" (my italics, E.T.).
71
Several unvocalized editions of m preceded the first printed editions that

included vowels and accents. 103 The first printed edition of the Hagiographa
with vowels and accents appeared in Naples in 1487, while the first complete
biblical text was printed in 1488 in Soncino, a small town in the vicinity of Milan.
These editions were followed by the appearance of several complete or partial
editions of Hebrew Scripture. All these editions include many mistakes and
idiosyncrasies, described in detail by Ginsburg* 1897. Sometimes words or entire
verses were left out or duplicated. The publishers did not indicate which
manuscript(s) they used for the edition, but Cohen* 1981 maintains that the
consonantal base of the early editions reflects specific manuscripts and not a
combination of such sources. The first editions actually included more than may
be expected from a text edition, since they included a Targum and some
medieval commentaries, mainly by R. David Kimhi (RaDaK) and Rashi. At that
time, the earlier manuscripts that were to dominate 20th century editions (codices
Land A among others) were not known to the editors or recognized as important
sources.
Particularly important for the progress of biblical research were the so-called
Polyglots, or multilingual editions. With the development of biblical criticism,
scholars increasingly based their work on these editions because of their rich
content. The Polyglot editions present the biblical text in parallel columns in
Hebrew (m and w.), Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, and Arabic, accompanied by
Latin versions of these texts and by grammars and lexicons of these languages,
while the earlier editions presented a smaller range of texts. The first Polyglot is
the Complutensian (-+ p. xxxiii) prepared by Cardinal Ximenes in Alcala (in
Latin: Complutum), near Madrid (1514-1517).1 4 The second Polyglot was
prepared in Antwerp (1569-1572), 105 the third in Paris (1629-1645),106 and the
fourth, the most extensive of all, was published by B. Walton* and E. Castellus in
London (1653-1657). The textual basis of the last three editions is unclear.
The first Polyglot edition was followed by the Rabbinic Bibles (later to be
named Miqra 'ot cedolot, "folio edition"). The name of these editions derived from
the inclusion of several medieval commentaries on m and one or more
Targumim ...... plate 26*. The first two Rabbinic Bibles (RB) were printed at the
press of Daniel Bamberg in Venice; the earlier one, RB1 (1516-1517), was edited
by Felix Pratensis and the later, RB2 (1524-1525), by Jacob Ben-Hayyim ben
Adoniyahu. RB2 differed from RB1, among other things, due to the addition of
103 Psalms (Bologna (?], 1477), Torah (Bologna, 1482), Prophets (Soncino, 1485-1486),
Hagiographa (Naples, 1486-1487).
104 According to Ginsburg, Introduction, 917-25, m in this edition was based on at least
three sources, MS Madrid University Library codex 1 (MS 59 of Ginsburg*, 771), the
Naples Bible (1491-1493), and the Lisbon Pentateuch (1491). According to P. Kahle,
"The Hebrew Text of the Complutensian Polyglot," in Homenaje a Millds-Vallicrosa
(Barcelona: CSIC, 1954) 1.741-51, some of the manuscripts used for this edition were
close to the Ben Asher+ tradition. On \13 in this edition, see S. O'Connell, From Most
Ancient Sources: The Nature and Text-Critical Use of the Greek Old Testament Text of the
Complutensian Polyglot Bible (OBO 215; Fribourg/ Gottingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006).
105 Biblia Sacra Hebraice, Chaldaice, Graece et La tine etc. (Antwerp: Christophorus Plantinus,
1569-1572).
106 Biblia Hebraica, Samaritana, Chaldaica, etc. (Paris: Antonius Vitre, 1629-1645).
72
the Masorah, which held a special place in that edition. Further differences
between the two editions include a number of readings, mainly in orthography,
vocalization, and accentuation (1% of all the details according to Penkower* 1982,
vii). For a modern version of the Miqra 'ot cedolot, see Cohen, Miqra 'ot Gedolot
"Haketer" (1992-2007). 107 This edition follows the layout of RB2, but its base text
is the Aleppo codex ...... ch. 9, Table 1 (p. 344)
The Rabbinic Bibles were based on several unnamed late 108 manuscripts, to
which the editors applied their editorial principles. The editor of RB1 based his
biblical text on several Ashkenazi manuscripts and the first printed editions
(Soncino 1488; Brescia 1494), while RB2 was based upon several "accurate
Spanish manuscripts" that were close to the text of the "accurate Tiberian
manuscripts" such as L and A.1 9 Sometimes, the editors changed details of these
manuscripts in their editions according to
own grammatical insights; this
applies especially to the system of the ga 'yot+ of RB2. RB1 recorded some variants
from other manuscripts in the margins.
Because of the inclusion of the Masorah, Targumim, and traditional Jewish
commentaries in RB2, that edition was hailed as the Jewish edition of the Hebrew
Bible. Consequently, all subsequent editions, with the exception of a few critical
editions issued in the second half of the 20 1h century, reflect this edition. 11 0 The
new editions deviated from RB2 only when changing or adding details on the
basis of other manuscripts or when removing or adding printing errors ...... pp. 89
RB2 became the leading edition because of its status within Judaism and the
scholarly world. However, the uncertainty regarding the textual base of this
edition is problematic for precise scholarship, and therefore several new editions
have tried to improve upon RB2 in various ways. 111 Sometimes, readings were
changed based on specific Masoretic manuscripts (e.g. J.H. Michaelis 1720 and
N.H. Snaith 1958, the latter following B.M. Or 2375, 2626, 2628 112 At the same
107The editorial principles are described in Joshua-Judges (1992) and 1-2 Kings (1995).
l08 According to humanist principles, editions should be based on late manuscripts that are
readily available. --+ Timpanaro, Genesis, 45
109renkower* 1982, xxviii-xxix, xliv-xlv. Thus also id., "Rabbinic Bible," in Dictionary of
Biblical Interpretation (ed. J .H. Hayes; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999) 2.361-4 (363);
Cohen, "Introduction," 11*-15*. In the words of Cashen-Gottstein* 1992, 224: "(w]ith a
view to the fact that this is the first eclectic text arranged in the early sixteenth century,
it seems amazing that, until the twentieth century, this early humanistic edition served
as the basis for all later texts." The differences between RB2 and codex A are recorded in
the HUB.--+ Goshen-Gottstein-Talmon, HUB, Ezekiel, xli
llOin the 17'h-20'h centuries, a few hundred good, yet non-critical editions have appeared,
the most important of which are those of J. Buxtorf (1618), J. Athias(1661), J. Leusden
(2"d ed., 1667), D.E. Jablonski (1699), E. van der Hooght (1705), J.H. Michaelis (1720), A.
Hahn (1831), E.F.C. Rosenmiiller (1834), M.H. Letteris (1852), the first two editions of
BH (Leipzig 1905, 1909-1913), and M. Koren (1962). The dates mentioned refer to the
first editions followed by revised editions and subsequent printings. Especially valuable
is the collection of variants of Kennicott* 1776-1780 based on the van der Hooght
edition (1705).--+ pp. 34, 37
111 See Cashen-Gottstein* 1992, 221-6.
112The Snaith edition did not follow the B.M. manuscripts exactly, as pointed out in detail
by Cohen-Freedman, "Snaith."
IA: Prato-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (!TI.-Group)
73
time, since all these editions reflect the Ben Asher text, the centrally accepted text
in Judaism, the recognition developed that any new edition should involve an
exact representation of that tradition. - p. 346. Thus S. Baer and F. Delitzsch
attempted to reconstruct the Ben Asher text on the basis, among other things, of
Ben Asher's grammatical treatise Diqduqqe ha-'f''amim.1 13 - p. 69. The edition of
Baer-Delitzsch was based on RB2, corrected according to the editors' principles,
particularly with regard to the system of the ga 'yot+. C.D. Ginsburg, while reproducing RB2, tried to adapt that edition to the presumed original form of the Ben
Asher text on the basis of his thorough knowledge of the Masorah. Ginsburg's
edition included a critical apparatus+ containing variants from manuscripts,
printed editions, and the ancient versions. 114 Cassuto's "Jerusalem Bible"
intended to reach the same goal by changing details in the edition of Ginsburg on
the basis of some readings in codex A that he had consulted in Aleppo. 11 5
Only in later years did the search for the most precise Bible text lead scholars
to systematically use a manuscript presumably vocalized by Aaron Ben Asher
himself (codex A), or one corrected according to that manuscript (codex L), or
codex C. 116
Several editions, some of them critical, are based on single sources or
combinations of such sources.
Codex L from 1009 (-plate 13*) formed the base for the third edition of BH
(1929-1937, 1951), as well as BHS (1967.:...1977 - plates 27* and 28*) and BHQ
(2004-;- plate 29*), in contrast to the first two editions of BH (Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1905, 1909-1913), which were still based on RB2. The two editions by A. Dotan,
Adi 1973 and Dotan 2001, are likewise based upon this codex. The great majority
of the efectronic e8itions of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture are also based on this
manuscript.- p. 24, bibliography
Codex A is used as the base text for the HUB+ and for Cohen, Miqra 'ot
Gedolot 'Haketer.' The editions of Breuer (1977-1982 and 1997 [Breuer, Horev]) 117
113 s. Baer & F. Delitzsch, Textum masoreticum accuratissime expressit, e fontibus Masorae varie
illustravit, notis criticis confirmavit (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1869-1894).
114 Because of the inclusion of all these sets of data, this edition may be considered a critical
edition; however, its text base is not a manuscript, but the RB2 edition that lacked
scholarly precision. - p. 349. Ginsburg will be better remembered for his monumental
Introduction (1897) that served as a preparation for his editorial activity on HebrewAramaic Scripture.- Blau* 1900
115 This edition was criticized much by P. Kahle, "The New Hebrew Bible," VT 3 (1953)
416-20; M. Medan, "The Jerusalem Bible: Comments on the Text, Vocalization, and
Accentuation," Leshonenu 18 (1952-1953) 181-92 (Heb.); Roberts, "Hebrew Bible," 254-55; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, "The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex," Textus 1 (1960) 1758 ( 30, n. 35) asserts that Cassuto's edition does not contain readings from codex A;
Ofer, "Preparation," 202-3. L. Simon, "The Jerusalem Bible," VT 4 (1954) 109-10 wrote
in defense of this edition that it was prepared after Cassuto's death in 1951 according to
his instructions.
.
116 Penkower* 1999 summarizes these tendencies among editors.
117The Jerusalem Crown (2000) described on the title page as The Bible of the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, follows "the methods of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer" (thus the
subtitle of the Companion Volume [ed. M. Glatzer; Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 2000]), especially
his Horev edition. The same subtitle records the basis of this edition as following "the
74
reflect this codex in orthography, vowels, and accents, although in practice they
were based on a number of Tiberian sources (codex L, B.M. Or. 4445, RB2 among
others). 118
The edition of Snaith is based on a combination of the Sephardic
manuscripts B.M. Or. 2375,2626,2628 and the "Shem Tov" Bible.119
B. Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch (w.-Group)

A.D. Crown & R. Pummer, A Bibliography of the Samaritans (3'd ed.; ATLA Bibliography
Series 51; Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2005).
M. Baillet, "Les divers etats du Pentateuque Samaritain," RevQ 13 (1988) 531-45; id.,
"Samaritains," DBSup (Paris: Letouzey & Ane, 1990) Xl.773-1047; Z. Ben-Hayyim, "The
Samaritan Vowel-System and Its Graphic Representation," ArOr 22 (1954) 515-30; id., LOT
(1957-1977); id., Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew (2000); I. Ben-Zvi, The Book of the Samaritans
(Heb.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1976); Cohen, "Orthography" (1976); A.D. Crown,
"Studies in Samaritan Scribal Practices and Manuscript History: III. Columnar Writing and
the Samaritan Massorah," BJRL 67 (1984) 349-81; id., The Samaritans (1989); id., "Samaritan
Literature and Its Manuscripts," BJRL 76 (1994) 21-49; id., Samaritan Scribes (2001); id.,
"Samaritan Scribal Habits with Reference to the Masorah and the Dead Sea Scrolls," in
Paul, Emanuel, 159-77; F. Dexinger, "Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner," in
Studien zum Pentateuch Walter Kornfeld zum 60 GeburtstaK (ed. G. Braulik; Vienna/Freiburg/
Basel: Herder, 1977) 111-33; E. Eshel, "4QDeutn" (1991); Gesenius, Pent. Sam.; Kartveit,
Samaritans; Macuch, Grammatik; J. Margain, "Samaritain (Pentateuque)," DBSup (Paris:
Letouzey & Ane, 1990) Xl.762-73; R. Pummer, "The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch," in
Pentateuch as Torah, 237-69; J.D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the
Samaritan Sect (HSM 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968); J.-P. Rothschild,
"Samaritan Manuscripts," in Crown, The Samaritans, 771-94; Sanderson, Exodus Scroll;
Sperber, Grammar, 234-97; Schorch, "Korrekturen" (1994); id., "The Significance of the
Samaritan Oral Tradition for the Textual History of the Pentateuch," in Samaritan Researches
V (Studies in Judaica 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing: 2000) 1.03-1.17; id., Vokale
(2004); id., "The Latent Masorah of the Samaritans," in Samaritans: Past and Present: Current
Studies (SJ 53; ed. M. Mor & F.V. Reiterer; Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter, 2010) 123-32; M.
Segal, "The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls," Materia giudaica XII
text and Masorah of the Aleppo codex and related manuscripts." The principles of the
Jerusalem Crown were explained by Glatzer, Companion Volume, 51-9; Ofer,
"Preparation."
l18According to the description in vol. II of the edition, Breuer produced an eclectic+ text
based on the majority of the sources examined; he notes that his preferred readings
always agreed with codex A. According to Breuer, this procedure ensured that he was
able to recover the text of that codex, including its lost pages, notably in the Torah, by
following the Tiberian manuscripts. Breuer's editions do not contain an apparatus
documenting the sources selected for the printed text. However, his later study, The
Biblical Text in the Jerusalem Crown Edition and Its Sources in the Masora and Manuscripts
(Heb.; Jerusalem: Keren Ha-Masora, 2003) may serve as such an apparatus. Cohen,
"Introduction," 61 *-9* criticized the eclectic choices of the Breuer system regarding the
ga yot.
119 see N.H. Snaith, "The Ben Asher Text," Textus 2 (1962) 8-13. For criticisms, see CohenFreedman, "Snaith."
lB: Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch (w.-Group)
75
(2007) 5-20; A. Tal, "Samaritan Literature," in Crown, The Samaritans (1989) 413-67; id.,
"Divergent Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch as Reflected by Its Aramaic Targum,"
journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999) 297-314; J.H. Tigay in id., Models, 53-96; E. Tov,
"Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the
Samaritan Pentateuch," in id., HB, GB, and Qumran (2008) 57-70; id., Consistency (2010); R.
Weiss,
bmqr' Qerusalem: Rubinstein, 1976) 317-37; M.M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten
Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95;
Leiden: Brill, 2011); J. Zsengeller, "Origin or Originality of the Torah? The Historical and
Textcritical Value of the Samaritan Pentateuch," in From Qumran to Aleppo, 189-202.
-fectronic toofs: A module of w. is included in Accordance (representing Tal, Shekhem) and

Bible Works (edition of von Gall). For both see 3. In Accordance, the differences between lll
and m are automatically indicated. Resident morphological analyses+ in Accordance allow
for a wide range of comparative searches of w. and m, including vocalization. The module
takes into consideration the Samaritan reading tradition as recorded by Ben-Hayyim, LOT
(e.g. a noun at the base of '1:::l,:::l in w. Exod 19:9 against the verbal form '""9':T"/l in !H).
Summary. The Samaritan Pentateuch (lll) contains the text of the Torah
written in a special version of the early Hebrew script+ (-+plate 17*),

preserved for centuries by the Samaritan community ....... 1. ll.l contains a
few ideological elements that form a thin layer added to an otherwise
non-sectarian early text -+ 4, very similar to so-called pre-Samaritan
texts found at Qumran. -+ 5. Scholars are divided in their opinion on
the date of the creation of the Samaritan text. -+ 2. Often the preSamaritan texts and ll.l are together named the ll.l-group. The preSamaritan texts are typologically older than ll.l, but as they have been
preserved fragmentarily, ll.l is discussed first. Since the differences
between ll.l and the pre-Samaritan texts are minor, the characterization of
the former essentially pertains also to the latter.
1. Background
Beyond the medieval copies of ll.l, scholars are interested in the early
(non-sectarian) Qumran manuscripts on which this text is based. Since
these texts are known only fragmentarily, our main source of information
is the medieval text of ll.l, which is sectarian. ll.l is the Samaritan text of
the Torah, 120 written in a special version of the early Hebrew script+ and
preserved by the Samaritan community in many copies. This text is
purely consonantal, and the reading tradition that developed alongside
the text remained oral for a long period. In due course, the Samaritans
120 The Samaritans also possess a version of Joshua that, among other things, contains
several readings agreeing with
against !)l. This text was published by Gaster, "Buch
Josua." See also Ben-Zvi*, 292-322. The status of this version is contested; seep. 315, n.
51. The Samaritans likewise possess a historical work containing material parallel to the
biblical books of Joshua-Kings and 2 Chronicles ("Chronicle II") ...... P. Stenhouse,
"Samaritan Chronicles," in Crown, The Samaritans, 222-3. For further details, see Baillet*
1990.
76
Chapter 2: Textual Witnessts
developed vowel signs, but only rarely were some of these insertedinconsistently-into late manuscripts. It was only in the 20 1h century that
parts of the Torah were written with partial (Ben-Hayyim* 2000, o;
Schorch* 2004, 27) or full vocalization. - r. Sadaqa (p. 78). The reading
tradition has been recorded in scholarly transliteration, especially by
Ben-IJayyim* 1957-1977, 2000*. This tradition is also reflected in
translations of w. into Aramaic and Arabic. 12 1 The importance of this
reading tradition for textual criticism was investigated especially by
Schorch* 2000 who concluded (1.16) that, as a rule, w. agrees with m. The
differences between the two reading traditions are recorded in TaiFlorentin, Samaritan Version (2010) and Schorch, Vokale (2004).
The scribal tradition of w. reflects several features that are similar to
those of the Qumran scrolls(- Scr. Prac., Index, 392) and the Masorah of
m. The "Samaritan Masorah" pertains to sense divisions similar to the
open and closed sections' of m, the fixed written form of certain sections
(- pp. 198-200; Crown* 1984), and also, at an earlier stage, to musical
directions similar to the Masoretic accentuation'.- Schorch* 20Hl
Because the consonantal framework of w. was largely based on preSamaritan texts such as those found at Qumran - 5, the descriptive
name "Samaritan" of w. is somewhat misleading at a textual level. The
later reading tradition of w. indeed reflects the Samaritan tradition, but
the main content of the text, including its typological characteristics often
differing much from !U+ and
were already found in the earlier
nonsectarian texts. Thus, whereas the proto-Masoretic texts derive from
the same circles as the medieval m - pp. 29-31; the pre-Samaritan texts,
while agreeing much with w., lack the ideological Samaritan features.
2. Date and Origin
R.j. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: Tilt Origins of S11maritanism Reconsidtnd (Atl<mt.J, CA/
Oxford: john Knox/Bl,Jckwell, 1975); A.D. Crown, "Rtdating the Schism bl'twt.t.n tht.
judat..lns .1nd the S.lm.Jrit,ms,"
H2 ( 1991) 17-50; r. Dexingt.r, "S,Jm.Jrit.Jn Origins ,md
the Qumran Texts," in Methods of lnuestigation of tile Dt'lld Sea Scrolls 11nd tile Kilirhet Qwnrttn
Site: Present
and 1-'lllllrt' Prospects (ed. M.O. Wise l'l al.; Ann.1ls of thl Nlw York
Academy of Sciences 722; New York: The New York Academy oi Scicnns, 1994) 231-46; E.
& H. Eshel, "Dating the S,ml.lrit<m Pentateuch's Cumpil.1tion in Light oi tht. Qumr.m
Biblic.1l Scrolls," in l'aul, Emtll/111'1 (2003) 215--40; M. Caster, Tile St1mt1ritans: Their 1/i..;fory.
Doctrines and Lilcmltm (Tht. Schwcich Lecturt.s 1923; London: Miliord/Oxiord UniVL'rsity
121 A. Tal, Tile Samaritan Targum of lilt Ptntalt'ttclt: A Critiml Edition, vols. 1-lll (Tl'l Aviv: TLl
Aviv UniVL'rsity, 19H0-191B); H. Shehadch, "The Ar.1bic Tr,mslation oi tht. S,ml.Jrit.m
Pt.nt.llt.uch," in Crown* 19H9, 4H1-51 o; id., Tile Amhic Tmns/11tion of lilt' S11111t1rilt111
Pt'ltlaltttclt, Vols. 1-2 (Jerusalem: lsr,ll'l Ac.ldLmy oi Sricnns .1nd llum,mitiLs, llJHlJ,
2002).
IB: Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch (w..-Group)
77
Press, 1925); I. Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early judaism. A Literary Analysis OSOTSup 303;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Kartveit, Samaritans (2009); N. Schur, History of
the Samaritans (BEAT AJ 18; Frankfurt a. Main: Lang, 1992).
In its present form, tu constitutes a Samaritan sectarian text. However,

from among the religious principles of the Samaritans, 122 it reflects
mainly that which refers to the central status of Shechem and Mount
Gerizim
hrgrzym, written as one word) in the cult.-+ 4b. When
the texts of tu were rediscovered in Europe in the 171h century, the fact
that they were written in a form of the early Hebrew script+ gave them
an appearance of originality, since all other manuscripts of Hebrew
Scripture that were then known (m) were written in the later, square
script+. However, the fact that the Samaritan texts are written in the
Hebrew script is no indication that tu reflects a more ancient text than its
Jewish counterpart; a paleographical analysis of the specific version of
the Hebrew script used by the Samaritans indicates that it dates from the
Hasmonean period or later.l 23
The historical data on the origin of the Samaritan community do not point to
an exceptionally early date, and thus do not support the claim of the Samaritans
that their texts are very ancient. The colophon+ in the Abisha' scroll of w.. 124
ascribes the writing of this scroll to Abisha' son of Phineas the priest who lived at
the time of Joshua, but scholars believe that this scroll was written in the 12th or
13th century CE. The most detailed summary of the views on the background of
the Samaritans is that by Kartveit*. According to Samaritan tradition, their
community originated at the beginning of the Israelite nation, and in their view
they preserve the authentic Israelite tradition. The Samaritans believe that it was
the Jews, rather than themselves, who separated from the central stream of
Judaism at the time of the priest Eli in the 11th century BCE. -+ Kartveit*, 35.
Among scholars, Gaster* and Hjelm* adhere to this view. Jewish tradition
explains the origin of the Samaritans differently based on 2 Kgs 17:24-34,
according to which the Samaritans were not related to the Israelites, but were
brought to Samaria from Assyria in the gth century BCE, after the destruction of
the Northern Kingdom. In the Talmud, they are indeed named "Kutim," that is,
people from Kutah, a region in Assyria (cf. 2 Kgs 17:24).
Against the testimony of the Samaritans and Jews, most scholars ascribe the
origin of the community to a much later period. According to one view, based on
the book of Ezra, the Samaritans are the people of Samaria (the Northern
Kingdom) who separated from the Judahites in the Persian period.-+ Ezra 4:1-5.
Others, on the basis of Josephus, Ant. XI 340-345, ascribe the origin of the
community, as well as the building of the Temple in Shechem, to the period of
122 See Ben-Z vi*, 137-50; J. Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (London: SCM, 1964).
123 R.S. Hanson, "Paleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age," BASOR 175 (1964) 26-42;
id. in Freedman-Mathews, Leviticus, 23 ("a date around 100 BCE"); Purvis*, 18-52;
Dexinger* 1994, 232; Ben-Hayyim* 1957-1977, 5.260-65; Eshel-Eshel*, 222-7.
124 F. Perez Castro, Sefer Abisa (TECC 2; Madrid: CSIC, 1959).-+ Ben-Zvi*, 233-50
78
Alexander the Great. Crown* 1991 mentions the 3'd century BCE as the time of the
schism. According to Purvis*, the Samaritans separated from their Jewish
brethren after the destruction of their Temple by John Hyrcanus in 128 BCE.
Coggins*, Eshel-Eshel* 2003, and Pummer* 251 support a 2nd century BCE date,
and the paleographical evidence points in the same direction.-. n. 123
If the Samaritan community was founded in the 5'\ 4'h, 3'd, or 2nd century BCE,
this dating does not necessarily have implications for the date of the text of their
Torah. The pre-Samaritan substratum was probably created prior to the
establishment of the community.
3. Manuscripts and Editions
Critical investigation of .w. began after the first manuscript of this text
was taken to Europe by Pietro della Valle in 1616. Soon afterwards, it
was included in the Paris Polyglot+ (1629-1645). The earliest known
manuscripts of .w. were written in the early Middle Ages. Crown* 2001,
14lists a number of scrolls from the 9th_ 13th centuries CE.12s
The main modern editions of .w. are listed in chronological sequence:
A.F. von Gall, Der ltebriiische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, vols. 1-V (Giessen:
Topelmann, 1914-1918; repr. Berlin, 1966) presents an eclectic+ reconstruction of
the original text, accompanied by an apparatus of variant readings. The edition,
based on many manuscripts but not all those known at the time, is detailed and
accurate, but the main text is artificially close tom because von Gall often chose a
reading that was identical tom. He also preferred defective to plene readings (p.
lxviii). Thus in Gen 2:11, he chose :::l:::lOii hsbb (= !ll) as opposed to :::l:::l10ii hs1.vbb, the
majority reading of lll.
A. and R. Sadaqa, ]L'wislt and Samarittm Version of the Pentateuch: With
Particular Stress on tl1e Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv /Jerusalem: Reuven
Mas, 1961-1965). The text of the first four Pentateuchal books is based on "an old
Samaritan manuscript from the eleventh century," while that of Deuteronomy is
based on the Abisha' scroll. It presents the text of m and lll in parallel columns
with typographical emphasis on the differences between them.
L.F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano: Genesis (Madrid: CSIC, 1976)
based on MS Add. 1846, Univ. Libr. Cambridge, with variants from 14 sources
that supplement the information in von Gall's edition.
Tal, Shekhem (1994). This diplomatic+ edition of MS Shechem 6 (1204 CE),
followed in this monograph, was considered the central critical text of lll until
Tal-Florentin 2010 (see below).-. iJectronic toors (p. 75)
I. Sadaqa, Ita-Torah ha-Qedo!iah (Holon: [A.B. Institute of Samaritan Studies],
1998 [2000]). This is the only vocalized edition of lll.
Tal-Florentin, Samaritan Version (2010). This improved edition of MS Shechem
6 (d. Tal, Shekhem) presents the text of lll and m in facing pages with typographical emphasis on the significant differences between them and with indication of
the vocalization (reading) differences between the two versions.- plate 19*
125 crown provides these figures for the early centuries: 9'h (2-3), 11 h (9), 12'h ( 17), l3'h (37).
The Abisha' scroll (n. 124) apparently was written in the middle of the 12'h century CE.
IB: Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch (w.-Group)
79
4. Nature of the Text
The nature of the text of the u.t-group can best be described by

contrasting it with other texts. 126 Critical classifications of the differences
between u.t and m were presented by Gesenius* 1815, Kirchheim, 127
Luzzatto,128 Purvis*, and Tal-Florentin, Samaritan Version, 25-38. In the
period before the Qumran discoveries, u.t was compared only with m and
11J, and that comparison yielded mainly negative judgments regarding the
characterization of u.t, since it ascribed to u.t extensive changes of the
earlier text. However, a more balanced comparison involving the u.t-like
Qumran texts shows that u.t did not insert many changes -+ 5, since it
reflected one of these early texts. It is now assumed that the u.t-group
reflects a popular textual tradition of the Torah that circulated in ancient
Israel in the last centuries BCE, in addition to them-group and other texts.
With the discovery of the u.t-like pre-Samaritan texts, we can now
distinguish between the substratum of u.t that was current in ancient
Israel in the last centuries BCE and a thin "Samaritan" layer that was
superimposed on it. The criteria for the separation of the two layers are
firstly the identified features of the pre-Samaritan Qumran texts that are
common to u.t, and secondly the characteristics of the Samaritan religion
and language as known from later sources but not found in the u.t-like
Qumran texts.
It seems that the Samaritans made but a few ideological and
phonological changes to the presumed base text. u.t differs in small
details from the u.t-like Qumran texts, making it impossible to locate the
exact scroll on which u.t was based.
What characterizes the ancient scribes of the u.t-group is the freedom
with which they approached the biblical text during the last centuries
BCE ...... p. 179. At a second stage, after the content of u.t had been fixed, no
major changes were inserted when it was copied but, unlike them-group,
scribes created many orthographical differences between the
manuscripts ...... Schorch* 2004, 29
126 For the number of differences between m and tu, one should examine the modern
editions of both texts. Usually, 6,000 such differences are quoted, but this figure is based
on the list produced by B. Walton, E. Castellus, and J. Lightfoot in Walton, Polyglotta
(1657) VI, IV.19-34 on the basis of now outdated editions. The readings were collated
again by Z. Metal, The Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch i11 Jewish Sources (Heb.; TelAviv: Don, 1979).ln my own calculation (2011), the total number is 7,000.-+ n. 228
127 R. Kirchheim, J1ir.l1tv 'r.li::J, lntroductio in librum Talmudicum "de Samaritanis" (Heb.;
Frankfurt a. Main: Koyfman, 1851; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970).
128 s.o. Luzzatto, in an appendix to the mentioned work by Kirchheim (n. 127).
80
a. Early (Pre-Samaritan) Elements in LU 129

The following analysis focuses on the features of the LU-group, although
the antiquity of every group of readings cannot be established with
certainty. For the sake of argument, the discussion of the differences
between !ll+ and the LU-group is phrased in such a way that it ascribes to
LU the changes in readings that had already been inserted in its presumed
pre-Samaritan base text, the biblical text then current.
a. Editorial Changes
The most characteristic readings of the w.-group were created by substantial
editorial change inserted in the earlier text. ""'t Segal* 2007; Tov* 2008; Kartveit*
2009, 259-312; Zahn* 2011. These changes involve additions (duplications) of
other Torah verses (with changes in names and verbal forms) and a few
rearrangements but no omissions, following a strong inclination in w. not to alter
the content of the divine word. 130 The changes should be considered editorial
rather than harmonizing, such as reflected in small harmonizing alterations in w.
(
The principle and substance of those changes is shared with \1j, while the
editorial changes described here are characteristic of the w.-group only. Its scribes
were especially attentive to what they considered to be incongruence within and
between stories in Scripture. Particular attention was paid to the presentation of
the spoken word, especially that of God and Moses, which was duplicated from
one context into another when the editor considered it lacking. Ultimately, the
changes reflect theological concerns. -+ pp. 242-56
The editorial changes are relevant to the literary analysis of Hebrew Scripture
as reflecting a late layer in its development. -+ ch. 7 A, B21; Tigay*. The alterations
described in the following paragraphs were inserted inconsistently in the earlier
text, that is, some topics were scrutinized more than others.l3 1 The two pericopes
129The analysis distinguishes between (a) early (pre-Samaritan) elements in lll, (b)
Samaritan elements, and (c) orthography. It is difficult to know to which period the
orthographic differences should be ascribed.-+ Schorch* 1999, 8-9
130The only exclusive 1ll plus that is not matched by !TI+ adds a phrase to Exod 23:19 ("you
shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk"), viz., :::lpll' 'ii"lt" iii:::lll1 n::>tD n:::lT::>
iitDll '::>.
This plus has been translated as follows by D.A. Teeter, '"You Shall Not Seethe in Its
Mother's Milk': The Text and the Law in Light of Early Witnesses," Textus 24 (2009) 3763 (43): " ... for doing this is like forgetting a sacrifice, and it is enragement < = ii"'):;l-\1 >to
the God of Jacob." However, the meaning of this plus is unclear, since :1"'):;1.!( should
probably be understood in the rabbinic sense as "transgression," which is not attested
in biblical Hebrew. Probably, the plus in 1ll was once extant in non-Samaritan
from where it was also quoted by 4QMMT B 38.-+ Teeter*
manuscripts (d.
131 Apparently, the scribes of the ru-group were more sensitive to these assumed
discrepancies than to differences between parallel laws (except for the frequent changes
in the Book of the Covenant [Exodus 21-23)). The laws were not altered because either
they were conceived of as different texts or it was not the scribe's purpose to harmonize
major differences (thus Segal* 2007, 17). Likewise, beyond the Torah, the differences
between parallel sections in Joshua //Judges and Samuel-Kings // Chronicles were not
harmonized much during their textual transmission.
IB: Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch (m-Group)
81
that were most edited were (1) Moses' summarizing speech in Deuteronomy 1-3
and (2) the story of Exodus 7-11, both involving spoken words.
(1) Moses' summarizing speech in Deuteronomy 1-3
With pedantic precision, the editor compared the details of this speech with the
preceding books
Each detail in that
scrutinized,
if it
did not occur exphotly m Exodus or Numbers, 13 or If It d1d not appear m these
books with exactly the same wording, it was repeated in the earlier books as a
foreshadow of Deuteronomy. 133 The details are recorded in the tables in Tov* 2008,
63-5 and Kartveit* 2009, 310-12. In this fashion, parts of stories that are often
unnatural in the new contexts are juxtaposed or integrated into the text in Exodus
or Numbers, thereby establishing the status of Deuteronomy at a formalistic level
as quoting earlier stories. In this way, lli adhered strictly to Deuteronomy's
framework of formally repeating the content of the earlier books (cf. its name
Mishneh Torah, the "repetition of the Law," in Jewish tradition).
(2) Exodus 7-11
In the story of the Ten Plagues, the m-group balanced the description of God's
commands to Moses and Aaron to warn Pharaoh before each plague with the
addition of a detailed account of their execution. Systematic additions of the
execution of these commands are found in lli Exodus 7-11 in contrast to the short
text of m+, where the execution of the command is mentioned briefly by such
formulations as " ... and he (etc.) did as .... " For example, after Exod 8:19,
4QpaleoExodm and m, following the formulation of vv 16 ff., add: "And Moses
and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him: 'Thus says the LORD: Let My people
go that they may worship Me. For if you do not let My people go, I will let loose
.... "'134 ..... 5
(3) Sundry Small Additions
Sundry small segments were inserted in the text in order to perfect the flow of
some stories.
In the story of the assembly at Sinai in Exod 20 (but not in Deut 5!), a section is
added to v 17 (= 21 m) in m, as well as to 4QRP3 (4Q158) and 4QTest, which is
seemingly unrelated to this event ..... p. 91, viz., Deut 18:18-22: "I will raise up a
prophet for them from among their own people, like yourself .... " This section
was added because of the earlier verse 16m+ m: "This is just what you asked of
132 For example, the two versions of the story of the appointment of the judges by Moses
differ from each other in all texts in content and wording, e.g. in the description of the
characteristics of the judges: in Exod 18:21 they are described in all sources as "'n 'tDJN
'NJtD noN 'tDJN C'itlN 'Ni', "capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate a
bribe," but in Deut 1:13 as C'.!J:t'1 C'J:::lJ1 C'r:l:m C'tvJN, "men who are wise, understanding
and experienced." In 4QpaleoExodm and JJJ., on the other hand, the account of Deut 1:918 was repeated in Exodus after 18:24 and in v 25 as an integral part of the story, thus
reducing the differences between the two descriptions ...... 5 and Tov* 2008
133 However, in two instances, earlier texts were repeated in Deuteronomy: Num 20:14a,
17-18 after Deut 2:7 and Num 33:31-37 in Deut 10:6-7.
134 These additions are not exclusive to the m-group. Similar additions are found in
4QGenk and in Gen 1:9 ..... p. 360; 1 Sam 9:3 Luc 5; 1 Kings 18:36 based on v 37.
82
the LORD your God at Horeb <i.e., Sinai>, on the day of the assembly, saying ... "
-+plate 19*. Since there is no express mention of the "raising of the prophet," in
the story of Sinai in m and the other sources, it was deemed necessary to add this
section in the common ancestor of 4QRPa, 4QTest (4Q175), and m.
A few similar phenomena are recognizable in discourse. In Exod 14:12, the
Israelites murmur against Moses after he led them through the Red Sea: "Is this
not the very thing we told you in Egypt, saying, 'Let us alone, and let us serve the
Egyptians, for it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the
wilderness'?" However, the exact wording of this complaint is not found earlier
in the book, and therefore m found it necessary to insert the source of this
quotation at an earlier point in the story, after Exod 6:9. Likewise, in Gen 31:1113, Jacob tells his wives of a dream that he had, but which had not been
mentioned in the preceding verses. This presumed "oversight" led the text
underlying 4QRPb (4Q364) and lll to add the content of the dream at an earlier
stage in the story, after 30:36. A similar addition is found in m after Gen 42:16,
based on Gen 44:22.
(4) Rearrangements
In 4QpaleoExodm col. XXX, as in m, the verses in which the construction of the
incense altar is commanded (30:1-10 m) come between 26:35 and 26:36-37. Likewise, in 4QpaleoExodm col. XXXIV, as in m, Exod 29:21 follows 29:28 (both
sequences are valid).
Small Harmonizing Alterations

E. Eshel, "4QDeutn" (1991); Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 37-42, 63-80; K.-R. Kim, Studies; Tov,
"Textual Harmonizations" (2008); Weiss* 1981,63-189.-+ bibliography on p. 258
Harmonizing alterations involve changes made in accordance with other

elements in the text. The harmonizations in ill reflect a tendency to
remove internal contradictions or irregularities from the Torah text that
were considered harmful to its sanctity. This feature, which scholars
often describe as being characteristic of ill, was actually already found in
the pre-Samaritan texts. -+ 5. By the same token, small harmonizations
are evidenced more frequently in lfi-Torah than in ill. -+ n. 228. Often ill
and lfi agree in a specific harmonization, 135 but more often they harmonize in different details. As a result, ill should no longer be named a
harmonizing text par excellence, especially since the editorial features
described in a are not classed as harmonizations.
The harmonizing changes described here are neither thorough nor consistent;
they reflect a scribal tendency, and not a system. The approach behind many of
the harmonizations is very formalistic, sometimes even thoughtless. Thus, m
preferred to use the same name for one person, and even when mentioning the
change of
to
(thus m), m uses that name twice (Num 13:16 ;"ltZ10
13 5 E.g., before !TI+ Gen 1:14
(based on v 15).-+ Table 4 (p. 34)
UJ
adds -1
'?JJ
El<; <j>avmv
83
"and Moses named Joshua son of Nun Joshua"!). Moreover, in

m (against all other witnesses, including the pre-Samaritan 4QNumb), Hosea is
already called Joshua in Num 13:8, before the change of names (thus also Exod
17:9 in all witnesses). Somewhat larger harmonizations are recognizable in the
descriptions of the borders of the Promised Land. While different descriptions
are found in all witnesses of Gen 10:19; 15:18; Deut 11:24; 34:1-3, in m the lists in
Gen 10:19 and Deut 34:1-3 are harmonized to that in Gen 15:18. In mDeuteronomy, this involves the omission of 34:2-3. In another case, the
genealogical list in m-Genesis 11 has been expanded in vv 11-25 in accord with
the pattern of the list in ch. 5. Small harmonizing changes are exemplified in
Table 10.
l)iD1;"T' )1J l:::l l)iD1;"T'',,
Table 10
Small Harmonizing Changes in .w.
Gen 7:2
m
Exod 8:20
Num27:8
Num 35:25
1:::3;::, ::Jil) (= ([0 N Ps-J 5)
m
Exod 18:26
tv'N
a male (literally: a man) and his mate (literally: his wife)

;,::JpJ1 i;:,r = lfi a:O Ps-J N 5 D (= 1:27; 5:2; 6:19; 7:3, 9, 16m m)
male and female
heavy swarms of insects
1:::3;::, ::Jil) = D (= 9:3, 18, 24; 10:14 m m)
4QpaleoExodm
very heavy swarms of insects
!ll+ ;"TtDO
J1N':::l'
i:::l1;"T nN
lli
the difficult matter they would bring to Moses

;"liDO
11N':::l' ,,,,i1 i:::l1;"T nN =lfi ( = v 22 !1l lli)
the major matter they would bring to Moses
1n::J', 1n',m nN
1n::J' m',m
c1;,
t:lr11:::ll'i1, (... lfi
a: o
Ps-J N 0 )
you shall transfer his property to his daughter

t:Jnn:n = 5 (= vv 9, 10, 11m w.)
you shall assign his property to his daughter
1'0
mt ;"11.!);"1
(. .
lfi
a: o
rs-J N)
the assembly shall protect the manslayer from the bloodavenger

c1;,
1'0
nN ;"!1lm
= 5 (= vv 21, 24m m)
the assembly shall protect the slayer from the blood-avenger
y. Linguistic Corrections
Most linguistic corrections in .w. were already found in its pre-Samaritan

forerunners.
(1) Removal of Orthographic+ Peculiarities
Unusual spellings are often corrected in the .w.-group. Thus pronominal

suffixes of the third person masc. sing. of the type i1.- were almost always corrected to i- as exemplified in Table 11. -+Young, "Suffix -H".
84
Likewise, the writing of K1ii (= K1;:T) is always corrected to K'ii in

4QpaleoExodm (e.g. 22:26, 31:13), 4QDeutn (5:5), and in ll.l (e.g. Gen 3:12,
20; 7:2). These phenomena are described here as "corrections" of m in the
m-group, but in principle they could also represent ancient readings
such as that found in them-like scroll4QLevc in Lev 5:12 K'ii.
Table 11
Corrections of Unusual Spellings in

Gen 9:21
mK
w.
= mO;
mK
i'ii'.tl
w.
1i'.tl =
Gen 49:11
mK
iin1o
w.
11'110::l;
Exod 22:4
mK
Gen 49:11
ll.l
w.
likewise: 12:8; 13:3; 35:21
mO
mO m1o
likewise Exod 22:26 mK
;"Th10::l; w. mO 1i110::l
i'ii'.tl::::l
4QpaleoExodm, 4QRpd (4Q366)
1i'.tl::::l =
mO
(2) Removal of Unusual Forms
Just as some details in ll.l are harmonized(--+ Table 10), unusual forms are
often replaced with regular ones. This applies to archaic and nonparadigmatic forms, such as obsolete case endings and the paragogic he
and nun. In this regard, ll.l resembles the author of Chronicles and the
scribe of 1Qisaa ...... pp. 256-7. These phenomena are described here as
"corrections" of min ll.l, but they could also represent ancient readings.
Table 12
Replacement of "Unusual" Forms with Regular Ones in

Gen 1:24
(ancient case ending)
nm
lli
Gen 10:8
m
w.
ll.l
;',1;"1; also 22:23 (however, most occurrences of ;", in the
qal for men were not changed ..... Tov, "Consistency," 331)
Gen 31:39
m
w.
Gen 42:11
m
w.
Gen 46:3
Exod 4:9
;"!",",
r:::Ji'
(unusual word ending)
;"!"'" n::::l1m r:::J1' n::::l1D
(by-form of
(also: Exod 16:7, 8; Num 32:32)
(unusual infinitive)
m
lli
i1iir.l
11.tlr.liD'
1.tlr.liD' (paragogic
w.
nun removed also in Exod 15:14, 22:21, 30;

Deut 6:14; 8:3; 2:4; 13:5, 12; 17:13 ..... Tov, "Consistency," 330)
lB: Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch (m-Group)

Exod 8:13a,14b m
Exod 15:16
Exod 22:6
4QpaleoExodm, 4QRPc (4Q365)
ine:n
lJl
ine:n
m
lJl
Deut 33:16
n':::lo
n':::lO
4QpaleoExodm
(removal of perfect pu 'al
forms; thus also Gen 40:15 m; - Tov, "Consistency," 331)
C'illi1 (unusual word ending)
4QDeutk2
C'illi1
(also elsewhere: Gen 19:8, 25; 26:3, 4; Lev 18:27; Deut 4:42,
7:22)
m
lll
vv 13b,14a
(paragogic he suffix)
m
lJl
Deut 19:11
also
lJl
85
(ancient case ending)

i1JO ptv
(3) Grammatical Adaptations
Many forms in tu are adapted to a formal conception of grammar, as if

these forms were incorrect, for example, in the lack of agreement of the
predicate with the subject in number and gender. 136 A similar phenomenon in 1Qisaa is exemplified in Table 22 (pp. 105-6).
Table 13
Grammatical Adaptations in m
m
Gen 13:6
...
...
Gen 30:42
J:::l'?'? C'5:lt:llli1 i1'i11
J:::l'?'? C'5:l1t:llli1 1'i11
Gen 49:15
:::l1t:l ;:, i1mo
i1:::l1t:l ;:,
Gen 49:20
10n'? i1JOiD
10n'?
Exod 17:12
1'i' 'i1'1
1'i'. 1'i1'1 =
Exod 18:20
i1:::l 1;:,'? liii1
i1:::l 1;:,'?
Num 9:6
'i1'1
4QpaleoExodm, 4QExodc
liii1
= 4Qpaleo Exodm
1'i1'1
8. Small Content Differences
Many of the readings of tu differ from m with regard to their content in

single letters and whole words, as exemplified in Table 14. Although
several such differences were undoubtedly inserted in tu, most were
already found in its pre-Samaritan forerunners. Some of these differences
136 The replacement of several plural verbal forms referring to C'i1'?1C, "God" <of Israel>,
with singular forms in Gen 20:13; 31:53; 35:7; Exod 22:8 is probably grammatical rather
than theological._. Schorch, "Korrekturen," 15-17
86
reflect scribal errors in either m or w.. -+ Schorch* 2000, 2004 for reading
differences and Tal-Florentin, Samaritan Version, 31 for attention to logic
Table 14
Content Differences between w. and m+137

Gen2:2
ffi
lll
'.l)'::liLlii C,'::l C'i1'?N '?::l', (=I[ O Ps-J N D) <preferable>

On the seventh day God finished ...
"iLliLlii C,'::l C'i1'?N '?::l', (= 5) cf. p. 244
On the sixth day God finished ...

Gen 14:14
Gen 47:21
ut
,'::l'Jn nN p,,, he armed (?) his followers

,'::l'Jn nN p1', he crushed (?) his followers
ffi
I:l',l''? ,nN 1'::llli1 Clli1 nN, (=
lll
I:l'1::ll''? ,nN 1'::llli1 Clli1 nN, (= ; .. D)
1[0
Ps-J N; .. 5)
And as for the population, he transferred them to the cities.

And as for the population, he enslaved them to servitude.
<preferable, cf. vv 19, 23>
Gen49:7
ffi+ C::lN ,,,N
lll
Exod 15:3
m
ut
Num 24:17
C::lN 1'1N
m
Ul
(=)cursed be their anger <preferable>

mighty was their anger
ilJW (= a::O Ps-J N D)
a warrior (literally: a man of war)

il:r; (... 5) a war hero
cf.
TTOAE flO US'
=?
someone who breaks war(s)
niD 'J::l '?::l ,p,p, ( = )
... and the foundation (?) of all the children of Seth
niD 'J::l '?::l 1p1p, (... Jer 48:45 m +) <preferable>
... and the pate of all the children of Seth
Note also the many chronological differences between m and w.

concerning the patriarchal period. -+ ch. 7B6
E.
Linguistic Differences
It is difficult to know which linguistic variants in w. are pre-Samaritan
and which were inserted by w.. Most variants, it seems, should be

assigned to the pre-Samaritan layer since similar differences in
vocabulary and morphology+ are found in the pre-Samaritan texts,
though not necessarily in the same details. The phonological variants of
w. appear to be Samaritan.-+ b. An extensive linguistic description of w.
is found in Ben-Bayyim* 1957-1977, 2000; Macuch*; Sperber*.
137 Every difference that did not arise from a scribe's orthographic or linguistic inclinations
is defined as a content difference, even in minute details such as graphically similar
letters.
87
(1) Morphology+
Like the pre-Samaritan and other texts from Qumran,

morphological variants:
ill
reflects many
Table 15
Morphological Differences between m and ill

Gen 49:4
m init'1
Gen 49:15
lll
lll
Exod 8:14
m
lll
i:::ll'
i:::ll' o1o',
(different pattern)
Cii'c:l":::l
Cii'c:lii',:::l ... i!Oi'T'c:lii',:::l
4QRPc (4Q365);
7:11 lTI lll
(2) Vocabulary
Many readings in ill are synonymous with words in m, as exemplified in

Table 16. For similar phenomena in the other textual witnesses, see pp.
257-8.- Weiss* 1981, 63-189
Table 16
Synonymous Words in m and ill

Gen 24:42
I; also 28:20; 37:16

I
lll
Exod 2:10
Exod 7:14
m
lll
;',ii the
il'Ji'T the
iitDO
lll
Lev 5:5
m
lll
Num 21:5
m
lll
child; same word used in m w. in vv 3, 6, 7, 8, 9

lad
The LORD said to Moses

i'TtDO
i'TW i:Ji'l The LORD spoke to Moses
= 4QpaleoExodm (i:::li'[1])
'::> i'T'i'T1 when he is guilty
'::> i'T'i'T1 when he sins (d. v 1)
i'T1i'T' iON'l
Why did you bring us up from Egypt?

Why did you take us out of Egypt?
(more frequent phrase)
J;n?lJ,i iTo',
lJnN::/m iTo',
b. Samaritan Elements
a. Ideological Changes
The main ideological change in ill concerns the central place of worship.
Wherever the Torah mentions or all4des to Jerusalem as the central place
138 Apocopated future forms of verbs primae yod were usually replaced in ill by regular
ones (e.g. i"1'1 33 times changed to i'"1'1 in Genesis 5, 11;-+ Tov, "Consistency," 331).
These cases reflect a trend similar to that in the examples in Table 12.
88
of worship, ill inserted, sometimes by way of allusion, Mount Gerizim,

(one word in the Samaritan orthography+). This change is
particularly evident in the Samaritan tenth 139 commandment referring to
the sanctity of Mount Gerizim. This commandment consists of verses
occurring elsewhere in the Torah: Deut 11:29a, Deut 27:2b-3a, Deut 27:4a,
Deut 27:5-7, Deut 11:30, in that sequence in ill-Exodus and Deuteronomy.
The addition includes the reading of ill-Deut 27:4 "Mount Gerizim"
instead of "Mount Ebal," which appears in most other witnesses, as the
name of the place where the Israelites were commanded to erect an altar
after the crossing of the Jordan_l40
Due to the same ideological tendency, ill altered the frequent Dtr+
formulation of m +,
ii1ii'
iiDK
"the site which the LORD will
choose," alluding to Jerusalem, to the past tense in:!, "has chosen"; from
the Samaritan perspective, Shechem had already been chosen at the time
of the patriarchs (Gen 12:6; Gen 33:18-20), and therefore they felt a need
to change the tense. See, e.g. Deut 12:11, 18. The following reading in ill
also possibly reflects the same ideological change:
Exod 20:24 (21)
!11+, \1J In every place where I will cause my name to be

ill
mentioned I will come to you and bless you.

In the place where I have caused my name to be
mentioned I will come to you and bless you.
Further possible ideological changes in ill are discussed by Margain*,

767-8 and Dexinger* 1994.
Phonological Changes
Many of the phonological features of ill, exemplified in Table 17, are
known from later Samaritan writings. Interchanges of gutturals in
general are also found in the non-Samaritan Qumran scrolls -+ Table 22
(pp. 105-6), but interchanges of
are particularly frequent in
139 The Samaritans consider the first commandment of the Jewish tradition (Exod 20:2 =
Deut 5:6) to be an introduction to the Decalogue, thereby making room in their tradition
for an additional commandment.-+ Kartveit* 2009, 290-95; Dexinger* 1977
140This reading is usually taken as tendentious, but since it is also found in the Vetus
Latina+ it should probably be considered non-sectarian and possibly original. Thus
Kartveit* 2009, 300-305 (with literature). A reading C'liJ"YT:::l is also found in a Judean
Desert fragment (Qumran cave 4?). -+ U. Schattner-Rieser, "Garizim versus Ebal: Ein
neues Qumranfragment Samaritanischer Tradition?" Early Christianity 2 (2010) 277-81.
See also R. Pummer, "APIAPIZIN: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance?" /Sf 18 (1987)
18-25. This reading, written as one word, occurs also in a Masada fragment written in
the early Hebrew script+ (papMas 1o). -+ Talmon, Masada VI, 138-47. However, the
Samaritan nature of that fragment is contested by H. Eshel, "The Prayer of Joseph, a
Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on APIAPIZIN," Zion 56 (1991) 12536 (Heb. with Eng. summ.).
89
Samaritan sources as they are in Galilean Aramaic. -+ Macuch*, 32; BenHayyim* 1957-1977, 5.25-9
Table 17
Differences in Gutturals between m and lli
Gen 2:14
Gen 19:29
Gen 25:9
Gen 49:7
Exod 28:26
Num 24:6
Deut 32:21
m
w.
m
w.
m
w.
m+
w.
m+
w.
m
w.
m
w.
"i.?:rr:t
"Pii1
t:lni:::ll'1
cm:::ln,
i:::ln "l'
i11i1'
i11i1'
c. Orthography+
Usually the orthography of the medieval representatives of lli is fuller
than that of
m (-+
Table 18; Purvis*, 52-69; Macuch*, 3-9), although not
greatly so.141 On the other hand, most pre-Samaritan texts are fuller than
lli and m_1 42 The two layers of the m-group thus behaved differently in
orthography.
Table 18
Differences in Orthography between m and lli in Genesis 49
m (BHS)
3
6
w. (ed. of Tal-Floren tin,

Samaritan Version)
jj:::l
'i1::l:::l
t:lib:::l
t:li10:::l
'i:J::>
'i1:::l::l
141 Cohen* 1976 showed that in certain words and grammatical categories m and J.U display
similar spellings but that the texts behaved differently in the five books of the Torah.
142 4QpaleoExodm and 4QExod-Levf are somewhat fuller than the medieval text of J.U (and
m), while 4QNumb, reflecting the spelling of the QSP+, is much fuller. For details, see
the text editions mentioned on p. 90. The full spelling of the pre-Samaritan texts does
not follow any specific pattern.
90

1(!:1,
10
11
13
14
15
17
21
24
26
1(1::!
ii"tD
1tD1::1"
mJ1l(
,,on
iin1Jo
j1lltD
iin1"tv
"ll1,T
.,ii
n1"Jl(
,bn
iin'(tv
"ll,T
.,,ii
Table 18 shows that w is written with a fuller orthography than m in twelve

words, and that in two instances the situation is reversed. In v 17 m
I w
]15l5ltv the two texts have different plene spellings.
Only rarely does the medieval text of lU contain very full spellings of the type
occurring in the QSP+ and in some pre-Samaritan scrolls.143
Gen 24:41b
m
lU
Deut 10:1,3
m
lU
pJ
l(pJ cf. v 41 a m iipJn, w l('pJn
C"JtDl(,:l
C"J1tD'l(,:l
4QRPb (4Q364) C"J1)tD"l(,:l
5. Pre-Samaritan Texts
Z. Ben-ljayyim, "Comments on the Use of the Term 'Proto-Samaritan'," in Language Studies
V-VI (Heb.; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1992) 13-23; Dexinger 1994; Eshel-Eshel*
(2003); Kartveit*, 259-312; Lemmelijn, Plagues Narrative; Tov 2008; Zahn* 2011.
Editions: DJD V (4QRPa [4Q158), 4QTest [4Q175)), IX (4QpaleoExodm), XII (4QExod-Levf;
4QLevd), XIII (4QRPb [4Q364)), XIV (4QNumb).
toofs: The pre-Samaritan texts are searchable in the DSS module in Accordance,
Bib/eWorks, Logos, and SESB. In Accordance, the differences between these texts and m are
automatically indicated. Resident morphological analyses+ allow for a wide range of
comparative searches and concordances.
Before the discoveries made at Qumran, scholars conceived of the

medieval manuscripts of w. as reflections of an ancient text, whose nature
could not be easily determined. However, this situation has changed
since the discovery at Qumran of texts that are very close to w. in
significant details. These texts probably preceded the creation of w., and
they are now called pre-Samaritan on the assumption that one of them
was adapted to suit the views of the Samaritans and subsequently served
143See Cohen 1976. In some details, the morphology reflected in the QSP bears a similarity
to w, for which see Kutscher, Language, 566-7; Z. Ben-Hayyim, "mswrt
wzyqth lmswrt h/sw11 Sl mgylwt ym
wgwn bz"l," Leshonenu 22 (1958) 223--45; M.
Mansoor, "Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts," JSS 3 (1958) 46-9.
91
as their Scripture. 144 The use of the term pre-Samaritan is thus based on
the assumption that while the connections between w. and the preSamaritan texts are exclusive, they reflect different realities. The preSamaritan texts are not Samaritan documents, 145 as they lack the
specifically Samaritan readings, 146 but they share with w. its major
features. Most pre-Samaritan texts are written in the square script+, while
4QpaleoExodm is written in the paleo-Hebrew script+.
The w.-group reflects a popular textual tradition of the Torah that
circulated in ancient Israel in the last centuries BCE in addition to the mgroup and many additional texts. It is represented by 4QpaleoExodm,
4QExod-Levf, 4QNumb (secondarily also close to
and possibly also
4
4QLevd_1 7 It is also reflected in the biblical manuscripts 4QRPa (4Q158)
and 4QRPb (4Q364)+, and is used by 4QTest (4Q175) in the quotation
from Exod 20:17 w. = 20:21 m (containing m Deut 5:28-29 [25-26], 18:18-19)
and by 4QComm Gen A (4Q252) and the author of Jubilees.l 48 The
earliest pre-Samaritan text is 4QExod-Levf, dated to the mid-third
century BCE. Some scholars name these texts "Palestinian" 149 since they
are not evidenced outside Palestine, but this term implies that no other
groups of texts were extant in Palestine.
The best-preserved pre-Samaritan text is 4QpaleoExodm (large sections of 44
columns from Exodus 6-37).1 50 -+ plate 2*. Most of the evidence pertaining to
editorial additions described in 4 pertains to this scroll and 4QNumb. Likewise,
a verse that is based on the parallel description in Deut 9:20 is added in
4QpaleoExodm and w. after Exod 32:10:
[ )1ii1
1.l)::l i1iDO '?'?Eln(' ]1 .11'0iDii'?
i11 [ i1'
'?m
[1n
... of [you] a great nation. [And the LO]RD[ was angry with Aaron,] so
much (that He was ready) to destroy him; and Moses interce[de]d for
A[aron]-thus also MS 58
144 ch. 7 of Kartveit* is therefore appropriately named "The Pentateuch That the
Samaritans Chose" (pp. 259-312). Ben-Hayyim* 1992 does not accept the logic behind
the term "pre-Samaritan."
145 on the other hand, M. Baillet claimed that several Qumran texts actually witness lll.
itself: "Le texte samaritain de I'Exode dans les manuscrits de Qumran," in Hommages a
Andre Oupont-Sommer (ed. A. Caquot & M. Philonenko; Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve,
1971) 363--81.
146 The tenth commandment of lll. (-+ p. 88) is found neither in 4QpaleoExodm (-+
Sanderson, Exodus Scroll, 13, 235; 0]0 IX, 101-2) nor in 4QRPa (4Q158).
147 4QDeutn is not a pre-Samaritan text; see E. Owen, "4QDeutn: A Pre-Samaritan Text?"
oso 4 (1997) 162-78.
148 According to J.C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies ill the Book of jubilees (HSM
14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977) 137, Jubilees especially reflects readings of lll.
and 113, texts that were "at home in Palestine."
149 Cross, OJO XII, 136.
150 P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, & J.E. Sanderson, 0]0 IX; J.E. Sanderson, "The Contribution of
4QpaleoExodm to Textual Criticism," RevQ 13 (1988) 547-60.
92
Furthermore, the following additions in 4QpaleoExodm record the explicit

fulfillment of the divine command to Moses and Aaron to warn Pharaoh before
each plague.- 4a
After
7:18
7:29
8:19
9:5
9:19
10:2
(based
(based
(based
(based
(based
(based
upon
upon
upon
upon
upon
upon
7:16-18 )
7:26-29 freconstructed D
8:16b-19 [reconstructed])
9:3-5 rreconstructed))
9:16-19)
10:5-6)
(col. II 6-11)
(col. III2-4)
(col. IV 4-9)
(col. V 1-3)
(col. V 28-31)
(col. VI 27-29)
4QpaleoExodm and w also display a major rearrangement vis-a-vis m.- p. 82
The close relationship between the pre-Samaritan texts and
can be viewed in Table 19.
U1
in contrast tom
Table 19
A Pre-Samaritan Text Compared with !lt+ and w.
mNum 20:12, Deut 3:24-27])
4QNumb Xl24-30 (Num 20:12-13b w [=
The underlining in 1 indicates the extensive differences between 4QNumb and

!H+, while 2 shows the proximity of 4QNumb to U1 (the only differences pertain
to orthography). 151
(1) Compared with
[lines 1-23 missing]

,tDK l',Kil
l:lh[-m3:24i
nK
13u
25
iltDl1' ,tDK r,KJ::l1

,tDK ili?Tnil il:l1'1
.
m 25[
,tDK nK1Til
r,Kil nK iTK,K1
I
27
nK
.
,ilil P,'ill
24
. .
tv1p'1 il1il' nK
nK1
li:')01Jti
iTTil
nK n,K,iTJ'?
il1il'
..
,tDK
,,,
..
I..
ilnK il1il'
l-11121>1
I..
tDK1J,l ?K j17l1
vucut
1-m 271
iTTiT
iTT iT
I..
2il
29
30
hoi/om mar}{ in
(2) Compared with

nm ,tDK l',Kil
'
))h r-m 3:24[
nN1 iT:l';l
iTTil
tv1p'1 il1il' nK
nN
nN n1N,il 1'?
U1
nK
" '
24
,tDN
ili1N il1il'
!)a
25
26
151 A similnrly close relation tow is shown in 4QNumb Xlll13-17 (Num 21:1lb 12a-b w ]=
m Dcut 2:9, Num 21:12, Dcut 2:1H-19]), and XIII 26-29 (Num 21 :20a-b w (=!It Num 21:20,
Dcut 2:24-25]).

;"T::>i1i1:lj::>1 ;"[2'iV170::> ;"liV17' iiVM fiM]:J1 C'OiV:J[ '?M '0 iiVM
;,pm;,
j;"l;"l pi';"T[ i:l17:l iiVM nM,m ];"l:l1c:l;"lf riM;"l nM ;"TMiM, MJ ;"li:l17M

'?M ;,:;>'-, :l"i[ ;"liV10 '?M ;"11;"1' ]"iOM[1'1
0
1..
(-m 26]
1..
]:iO' i1::>'J['17 MiV1 ;"l.i05:li1 iVM1]i[ ;M i1 )17
vacat
[=!11 27]
93
;"1::>,']
(-m 25]
]1J:l'?;"l1 ;"Tii1
1..
i1ii1 i:l,:l ,,17 '7M i:l,]
27
2s
29
30
Even though the pre-Samaritan texts and w. share distinctive typological traits
and many small details, they also diverge occasionally. For example, the number
of editorial additions (pp. 80-82) differs somewhat in the various sources:
4QpaleoExodm reflects fewer editorial interventions than w., while 4QNumb has
more. In addition, individual texts of the w.-group also display unique readings.
However, in spite of these differences, the editorial and harmonizing readings
common to the above-mentioned texts are exclusive and hence form a distinct
group. w. is somewhat removed from the pre-Samaritan texts on account of its
ideological corrections, phonological changes, and slightly more defective
orthography+. 152 ..... p. 87-90
Little can be said with certainty on the internal relation between the preSamaritan texts. Their agreement in idiosyncratic features would indicate a
common text that was subsequently developed in various ways in the different
manuscripts. 153
It is difficult to know why the Samaritan community chose a so-called preSamaritan text as the basis for its Scripture in all five Torah books. In all
probability, there was no special reason for this choice other than the fact that
popular texts such as these must have been current throughout Israel. ..... p. 187.
Neither the proto-Masoretic text, usually associated with the Temple circles, nor
the text underlying (\j was chosen for this purpose.
The editorial developments visible in the w.-group make it an

important source for our understanding of the growth of the books of
Hebrew Scripture, in addition to what is known from m and (\j and some
Qumran texts ...... ch. 7s21
C. The Biblical Texts Found in the Judean Desert
Fitzmyer, Dead Sea Scrolls; F. Garda Martinez & D.W. Parry, A Bibliography of the Fi11ds i11 the
Desert of Judah 1970-95 (STDJ 19; Leiden: Brill, 1996); Lange, Ha11dbuch (2009);
http://orion.huji .ac.il I resources I bib I bibliosearch.shtml
Barthelemy, Critique textuel/e 1992, xcviii--cxvi; Cross, ALQ 3; Cross-Talmon, QHBT; Debe(,
"Variant Literary Editions"; T. Elgvin, "Sixty Years of Qumran Research: Implications for
152 Aithough the pre-Samaritan texts are more than one thousand years older than the
medieval manuscripts of ill, the somewhat more defective spelling of the medieval
copies of ill reflects a typologically earlier stage in the development of the ill-group.
Apparently, the medieval copies of ill derive from a copy that is older or less doctored
than the copies found at Qumran.
153 Alternatively, scribes independently produced copies of the biblical text reflecting the
same editorial-scribal tendencies. However, the high degree of agreement between the
pre-Samaritan texts does not support such an assumption.
94
Biblical Studies," SEA 73 (2008) 7-28; Lange, Handbuch; A. Paul, La Bible avant Ia Bible, Ia
grande revelation des manuscripts de Ia mer Marte (Paris: Cerf, 2005); M. Segal, "The Text of the
Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls," Materia giudaica XII (2007) 5-20; P.W.
Skehan, "Qumran, Litterature de Qumran, A. Textes bibliques," DBSup (Paris: Letouzey et
Ane, 1979) IX.805--22; Y. Sussmann, "The History of Ha/akha and the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Preliminary Observations on 4QMiqsat Ma'ase haTorah (4QMMT)," Tarbiz 59 (1989-1990)
11-76; Talmon, Qumran; Tov, Samuel; id., "Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from
Qumran," in Tov, HB, GB, and Qumran (2008a) 27-41; id., "The Biblical Texts from the
Judaean Desert: An Overview and Analysis," in Tov, ibid. (2008b) 128-54; id., Scr. Prac.; id.,
Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Lei den: Brill, 2010); E. Ulrich, "The Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Biblical Text," in Flint-VanderKam, DSS 1.79-100 (1998); id., DSS (1999)
121-47; id., "The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text," in Schiffman, Dead Sea Scrolls (2000)
51-9; Washburn, Catalog.
toofs: The biblical scrolls are searchable tn the DSS module (M.G. Abegg) in
Accordance. The differences between the scrolls and m are automatically indicated and the
program enables the creation of concordances.
1. Background
The main find site of biblical manuscripts in the Judean Desert area is
Qumran, some
15 km south of Jericho near the Dead Sea, where
remnants of 930 biblical and non-biblical scrolls, once complete, were

found in eleven caves.1 54 The texts deposited in the caves probably had
been collected by the Qumranites, 155 but we possess no information
regarding the role of these texts, or their possible use in the daily life of
the community over a period of more than two hundred years. The term
library is often used for this collection, mainly for the texts found in cave
4, but it would probably be more appropriate to consider the caves as
text depositories. It stands to reason that at an earlier stage most of the
cave 4 scrolls were housed in a central location in one of the community
buildings. The nature of the groups of texts found in individual caves has
not been clarified.156
154 some of the Judean Desert texts have already been discussed in sections A and B,
dealing with the proto-Masoretic and pre-Samaritan texts. Those sections treated
important textual witnesses (m, ut) attested not only in medieval sources but also in the
Judean Desert texts. In this section, the complete evidence of the discoveries in the
Judean Desert is presented, making a slight overlap with those sections.
155 The Qumran scribes were also involved in the copying of scrolls. Possibly, the room in
which this activity took place, the so-called scriptorium, can be identified. -+ Tov, Scr.
Prac., 15, n. 33
156The only characteristics of the individual caves seem to be: (1) Cave 7 contains only
Greek papyrus fragments (19 items), probably mainly Scripture texts. (2) Most of the
texts from cave 6 are Hebrew papyri, including a few that are biblical. These two
collections must have derived from a special source, different from that of the main
depository of texts in cave 4. (3) The collection of texts from cave 4, by far the largest
among the different caves, probably constituted the main collection of the Qumran
community, as no compositions (as opposed to copies) were found in caves 1-3 and 5--
IC: The Biblical Texts Found in the Judean Desert
95
Another group of 25 texts was found in various additional places in

the Judean Desert. ..... 2b below
While the identification of the community living at Qumran is relevant for an
understanding of the non-biblical texts found there, it is of limited importance for
the discussion of their Scripture texts since many of the biblical scrolls found at
Qumran were apparently taken there from other places. It appears that Qumran
was inhabited by Essenes (possibly identical to the Boethusians mentioned in
rabbinic literature}, whose halakhic practices may have derived from those of the
Sadducees, as suggested by an analysis of 4QMMT.-+ Sussmann*
2. Evidence
a. Qumran. Between 1947 and 1956, fragments of 210-212 biblical

scrolls from Qumran (representing 224-226 copies of biblical books) were
found in the eleven Qumran caves. 157 - Table 20. Most of the fragments
are small, containing no more than one-tenth of a biblical book, while
1Qisa3 contains the complete text of Isaiah.
Within the Qumran corpus of some 930 texts, the biblical texts constitute 22%
(not counting the tefillin and mezuzot). 158 The number of copies of the individual
books shows the differing levels of interest in them: Note the exceptionally
numerous copies of Genesis (23-24}, Deuteronomy (32}, Isaiah (21}, and Psalms
(36}, reflecting the interest of the Qumran covenanters ...... Table 20
The main depository of texts is cave 4, which contains copies of all the
books of the Hebrew Bible with the exception of Esther 159 and possibly
11 that were not matched by cave 4 copies. (4) A large percentage of the identifiable
texts from cave 11 reflect the QSP+ or are sectarian.-+ Tov, HB, GB, and Qumran, 421-37
157 Many doubts remain in matters of detail rendering the total numbers approximate only.
(1) Do certain groups of fragments now regarded as single scrolls possibly represent
more manuscripts (e.g. Mur 1)? Conversely, do e.g. 4QJerb,d,e indeed form three
manuscripts (thus DJD XV), and not a single one? (2) Our analysis refers only to the
books contained in the traditional canon of the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible since we are
uncertain regarding the canonical conceptions of the persons who left these texts
behind.-+ E. Ulrich, "Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament," The Biblical Canons,
57-80; A. Lange, "The Status of the Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the
Canonical Process," in The Bible as Book, 21-30. (3) The figures are based on the views of
the scholars who published the texts. If texts that are considered liturgical by some or
most scholars have been published as canonical texts, such as 4QPsf, 11QPs 3 (-+ pl. 8*)
and llQPsb -+ pp. 320-21, they are included in the figures. (4) Tefillin and mezuzot,
although containing segments of Hebrew Scripture, are excluded from the statistics.
158 In the Masada corpus, the biblical texts constitute a larger percentage, 46.6 or 43.75%
depending on a calculation of either 15 or 16 literary texts. Within the biblical corpus, a
special interest in the Torah is visible at all the Judean Desert sites: 89 texts or 42.5% of
the Qumran biblical corpus, and 15 texts or 60.0% at the other sites.
159 By coincidence, so it seems, no fragments of this relatively small book have been
preserved. On the other hand, S. Talmon, "Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?"
DSD 2 (1995) 249--67 (with earlier literature) and J. Ben-Dov, "A Presumed Citation of
Esther 3:7 in 4QDb," DSD 6 (1999) 282-4 claimed that Esther was known to the
96
Chronicles, 160 as well as of some of the so-called Apocrypha and

Pseudepigrapha. 161 Although most of the scrolls contain only one
biblical book, ten Torah scrolls contain two consecutive books. - Table
20. Likewise, the books of the Minor Prophets were treated as one book
and appeared together in one scroll. At the same time, some scrolls
contained mere selections:
(Deuteronomy 32), 4QExodd,
4QCanfl,b; 4QPs8, 4QPsh, SQPs (all: Psalm 119).- ch. 7s18
Table 20
Biblical Scrolls Found at Qumran (2009)162
Book
Square
Script
PaleoHebrew
Script
Notes Referring
to Additional Books
Included
Genesis
20-21
Exodus
15
Leviticus
10
4QGen-Exoda includes
Exodus; 4QpaleoGenExod1; 4QRPa: Gen,
Exod; 4QRPb: Gen,
Exod, Num, Deut;
4QRrc: Gen-Deut
4QExodb includes Gen;
4QExod-Levf; 4QRpd:
Exod, Num, Deut
4QLev-Numa includes
Numbers
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Samuel
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
5
30
2
3
1
2
4QDeuti includes Exod
3
21
6
6
covenanters. Talmon suggested that the Qumranites did not accept this book as
canonical.
1604QChron (4Ql18) is extremely fragmentary, and G.J. Brooke, "The Books of Chronicles
and the Scrolls from Qumran," in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (ed. R. Rezetko eta!.; VTSup 113; Leiden: Brill, 2007)
35-48 doubts that this fragment contains a segment of the book of Chronicles.
161 Fragments of Tobit, Jubilees, Levi ar, Tfud ar, TNaph. In the wake of the Qumran finds, the
terms "Apocrypha" (non-canonical compositions contained in Jewish-Greek Scripture
-+ p. 129) and "Pseudepigrapha" Oewish religious works written between c.200 BCE and
c.200 CE not included among the Apocrypha) are now anachronistic. All these compositions are actually exponents of the Second Temple Jewish literature.
162The data are based on Tov* 2010. Ten unpublished fragments are not included in the
calculation. Fragments covering more than one biblical book are counted only once.
IC: The Biblical Texts Found in the ]udean Desert

Minor Prophets
8-9
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Canticles
Ruth
Lamentations
Qoheleth
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles
36
97
4QXIIb,g contain more

than one book
4
4
4
2
8
2
1
Fragments of twelve biblical scrolls written in the paleo-Hebrew script+

have been found at Qumran. 163 -+ Table 20. The writing in this script
must have been preserved for the most ancient biblical books, the Torah
and Job-note that the latter is traditionally ascribed to Moses. 164 The
longest preserved texts written in the paleo-Hebrew script are
llQpaleoLeva (-+Freedman-Mathews, Leviticus) and the pre-Samaritan
4QpaleoExodm.-+ pp. 90-93. These texts reflect textual variety -+Ulrich*
1999, 121--47, and accordingly their textual character cannot serve as a
key for solving the riddle of the writing in this script. The texts written in
the paleo-Hebrew script differ from those written in the square script+ in
the scribal characteristics inherent with the writing in that script, the
almost complete lack of scribal intervention, and in additional scribal
features. It is not impossible that these texts derived from Sadducean
circles -+ Scr. Prac., 246-8; in any event, paleographical analysis suggests
that these texts do not belong to the earliest group of Qumran scrolls. -+
n. 123
b. Other Sites in the fudean Desert. The medieval consonantal text of m
more closely resembles the 25 texts found outside Qumran than the mlike Qumran texts. -+ p. 29
163 1QpaleoLev-Numa; lQpaleoLevb?; 2QpaleoLev; 4QpaleoGen-Exod1, 4QpaleoGenm,

4QpaleoExodm, 4QpaleoDeutr,s, 4QpaleoJobc; 6QpaleoGen, 6QpaleoLev; llQpaleoLeva .
..... Tov, Scr. Prac., 54-6; E. Ulrich, "A Revised Edition of the 1QpaleoLev-Numa and
lQpaleoLevb? Fragments," RevQ 22 (2006) 341-7. The identification of the unprovenanced paleo-Hebrew fragment XpaleoDaniel is very unlikely. See E. Puech, "Note
additionelle sur le fragment en paleo-Hebreu," RevQ 19 (1999) 449-51.
164 0. b. B. Bat. 14b-15a and also ancient (Jacobite) manuscripts of the Peshitta in which Job
follows the Torah.
98
Table 20a
Biblical Scrolls Found at fudean Desert Sites Other Than Qumran

Book
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Minor Prophets
Psalms
Daniel
Square
Script
PaleoHebrew
Script
4
1
4
4
0
0
0
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
(2009)165
1? (-+ n. 163)
3. Dating
G. Doudna, "Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis," in FlintVanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls (1998) 1.430-71; A.].T. Jull et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of
Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert," Radiocarbon 37 (1995) 11-19 = "Atiqot
28 (1996) 85-91; E. Tov, "The Sciences and the Reconstruction of the Ancient Scrolls:
Possibilities and Impossibilities," in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea
Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, l.Jlnguages, and Cultures (ed. A. Lange et al.; VTSup
140 I 1; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011) 3-25.
The first system used for dating scrolls was that of paleography (dating on
the basis of an analysis of the handwriting), and this is still our major
resource for dating. 166 At the same time, at an early stage in the study of
the scrolls, C-14 examinations 16 7 of the leather and papyrus fragments
165The data are based on Tov* 2010, 126-9. Sixteen unpublished fragments are not
included in the calculation. Fragments covering different books are counted only once.
This table covers the following sites: Wadi Murabba'at, Wadi Sdeir, Nahal Arugot,
Nabal Hever, Nabal Hever/Seiyal, Nahal Se'elim, Masada, and unknown sites.
166 For a summary of the paleographical dates given to the scrolls, see B. Webster, DJD
XXXIX (2002) 351-446.
167 C-14 analysis is based on a comparison of the animal hides that contained carbon-14
atoms when the animal was alive and tree rings also containing C-14 atoms. The logic
behind this comparison is that the number of carbon-14 atoms in the hides decreased at
a measurable rate after the death of the animal, when they became C-12 atoms, all to be
compared with the tree rings.
/C: Tile Hi/!liml Ttxls Fo1111d i11 lilt' /lldl'tlll l>tstrl
99
bLcanw instrunwntal in determining their dates .... Doudnn*, usually

supporting pallographical dating.lhH
Tlw paleographical datl'S applied to tlw documents rangL' from 2!i0 IICF
to hH n: for tlw Qumrnn texts, 1h 9 from 50 lll'F to 30 n: for the Masada texts,
nnd from 20 lin to 115 l'F for the texts from Wndi Murnbba'at, Wadi
Sdeir, Nahallkwr, and Nahnl SL'elim. 17
Tlw earliest Qumran biblical fragments(-+ n. 170) postdate the date of
writing of thl' latest biblical books by several centuries. However,
4QDan', containing portions of the second part of the book, were
probably copild between 125 and 100 BCI;, not more than sixty years after
the completion of the finalLditing stage of that book.
4. Publication
Most of the biblical texts nrc included in the 0/0 series (for which vol.
XXXIX and Tov,
Lists servl' as an index): D/ D I (Qutnran cave I);
II (Wndi Murabba'at); Ill (minor Qumrnn cnvcs); IV (liQPs), IX, XII,
XIV-XVII (nil: Qumran caw 4); XXIII (Qumrnn cave 11 ); XXXII (rel'dition of 1
An abbnviated version of nil these Lditions is
included in Ulrich, RQS (2010). Very few editions were published beyond
D/D. .... Freedman-Mathews, Ln,iticus. The ft:{illill and mczuzot were
published in vnrious ndditionaleditions ..... n. 195
Nahal !.lever, and
Tlw texts found at Wadi Sdeir, Nahal
Murnbba'at Wl'rl' published in D/D II nnd XXXVIII. For the Masadn texts,
Sl'l' S. Talmon in Masada VI, 1-149.
Sel' also E. Tov, "Recording the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Text Editions
of Hebrl'W Scripture," in fiR, CR, 1111d Qumm11 (200H) 221-7 ..... ch. 911
lhHFm l'X,lmpll, with tlw aid of .1 l'-14 ll'::;l, 1Qisa'1 was d.11l'd to lwlWl'l'n
.md IO:IJICI;
(pilll'ogr..Jphic,ll dall':
BCJ;) -o Jull*, whill' C. Bonani l'l .11., "Radiocarbon Dating
oltlw lh,1d S1a Scrolls," '1\liqol 20 (1991) 27-:12 .
14 (1992) H4:1-49 sugg1st
202107 ll( '1: For comparalivl' lahl1s ncmding tlw p.lll'ographic.ll .md l'-14 data, Sl'l'
Wl'hslr ( n. I hh).
169 Sonw Qumr.m srroll!> carry d,lll'S th.ll .ll'l' l'arlil'r th,m thosl' ol tlw aclLt.ll sl'llllmtnl at
Qumran, which is
Ill'!: until 6H n; according to tlw nvis1d chronology of J.
M.1gnlss, '1'111 1\rdwo/ogy o((,JIIII/1'1111 111111 1/11 I >tttd St'il Sao/Is (( ;r,md Rapids:
2002)
Wlwn moving out to tlw dl'Sl'rl, tlw QumJ\1n inh.1bitants look with tlwm
scrolls that h.1d hl'l'n wrill1n .11 .m l'Mlilr 1wriod. Tlw pl'lf.. 1wriod for srroll production
mincidtd with tlw JWriod of sl'llll'llll'nl ,ll Qumr,m. -o Tov, "I >iflusion"
170 According lo this <IIlLI Iysis, tlw old1sl biblic,ll srrolls, sl.uling with tlw most .nll'i1nl, .ll'l':
4QExod-l.lv 1, 400oh'1, 4QXII'1, ,md 4Qjtor' 1, ,Is dJsnilwd in tlw tollowing
1:.M. Cross, "Tiw Oldlsl M.musnipls I rom (Jumr.111," /HI. 7-l (
147--72; id.,
/\1.(/1, 171 4; I>.N. l:ndrn.m, 'Tiw M.1sorl'lic Tlxland tlw ()llllll\111 Snolls: A Study in
Orthogr.1phy," Tn/11.' 2 ( 1%2) H7 102; A. Y.ll'lilni, 'Tiw l'al.wogr,,phy of 4(Jjtor'1 : A
Comp.lr,llivl' Study," TniiiS
( llJ9()) 211 6H.
100
5. Texts Written in the Qumran Scribal Practice

Cross, ALQ3, 174-7; Freedman-Mathews, Leviticus, 51-82; Kutscher, Language; Martin,
Scribal Character, 1.393--402, 11.71{}--11; P. Muchowsk.i, Hebrajski Qumrdnski jako jezyk m6wiony
<Qumran Hebrew as a spoken language> (Poznan: Wydawnistwo Naukowe, 2001);
Qimron, DSS (1986) 17-24, 57-64; E.J.C. Tigchelaar, "In Search of the Scribe of 1QS," in
Paul, Ema11ue/, 439-52; Tov, Scr. Prac. (2004) 261-73; id., "Scribal Features of Two Qumran
Scrolls," forthcoming (2012).
The 210-212 Hebrew-Ararnaic biblical texts found at Qumran do not

share any major textual, linguistic, or scribal characteristics. Since they
were written in different periods and at different places, they reflect
textual and linguistic variety as described .in 6. However, one group of
texts is idiosyncratic and is closely related to the scribes who copied the
Qumran sectarian scrolls:
Within the Qumran corpus, a group of 167 non-biblical and biblical texts has
been isolated as reflecting an idiosyncratic practice, the characteristics of which
are visible in
in orthography+, morphology+, and scribal features.
-+ Tov* 2004. 1 1 These texts do not share a common textual typology. -+ p. 109.
This group of texts is closely connected with the Qumran community, since it
includes virtually all commonly agreed upon sectarian writings. 172 The texts written
in the Qumran scribal practice (QSP) could have been penned anywhere in
Palestine, but they were probably written mainly at Qumran. 173 Early scrolls,
such as 4QQoha (175-150 BCE), must have been copied elsewhere by similarly
oriented scribes as this and a few other texts predate the settlement at
Qumran. 174
171 Two similar texts were found at Masada (MasShirShabb [Mas 1k] and MasQumranType Fragment [Mas 1n]). These texts, as well as others, were probably taken to Masada
by one of the fleeing Qumran covenanters.
172seven or eight sectarian writings do not display these characteristics.-+ Tov* 2004, 262
173It must be conceded that the term Qumran scribal practice used here may be misleading
since the described practice was not invented by the Qumran scribes and may well have
been used elsewhere in ancient Israel, but no better term suggests itself. In many
aspects, this is a Palestinian scribal system, but it would be misleading to call these texts
Palestinian, since the use of such terminology would imply that there are no other
Palestinian texts. The name QSP merely indicates that as a scribal system it is known
mainly from a large number of Qumran scrolls, without implying that this practice was
used only at Qumran.
174The statistical analysis is based on the Qumran corpus containing fragments of 930
texts, from which 150 Aramaic (including 17 Nabatean-Aramaic texts) and 27 Greek
texts are excluded, since they display no features comparable to the orthographic and
morphological peculiarities recognized for the Hebrew texts. By the same token, at least
another 150 items should be excluded due to their fragmentary state. From among the
600 remaining texts, 400--500 are large enough for analysis. Within this group, Tov*
2004, 277-85 lists 167 texts (including biblical texts and 8 tefillin) that presumably reflect
the orthographic and morphological features of the QSP (of these 167 texts, some 130
are good candidates, while the remainder are probable candidates). The 28 biblical texts,
not all equally convincing, are listed on p. 104.
101
The QSP is characterized by orthographic+, morphological+, and

scribal 175 features.176
a. Orthographic Features
Many Qumran texts are characterized by a distinctive orthography+ that
has no equal among the known documents from other places, while a
few features are reflected in the letters from the period of the Second
Jewish Revolt, in Mishna manuscripts-+ Kutscher*, 20, and in the orally
transmitted reading tradition of tu, 177 but the evidence known to date
does not provide any close parallels to the combined features of the QSP.
In addition to the very full orthography, it has some special orthographic
features, which occur in conjunction with a series of morphological and
scribal features (see below). Cross* describes the orthography of these
texts as a "baroque style" and includes the morphological features
described in b under the heading of orthography.
The orthography of the QSP has been described in various studies, especially
in the detailed description of 1Qisaa by Kutscher*, in an analysis of all the
Qumran texts by Qimron*, and in Tov* 2004. It is characterized by the addition of
many matres lectionis+ whose purpose it is to facilitate the reading ...... pp. 208-18.
Below are several examples which should be viewed in conjunction with the texts
reproduced in plates 3*-5* and in Table 22 on pp. 105-6 (for statistical details, see
Tov* 2004, 337-43):
In the orthography of the QSP, I o I and I u I are almost always represented by
a waw, including
(e.g. liD1n, i11::l, i1iD1o), qame?
('-,1::>, i10::>1n,
and
qame? (e.g.
Because of scribal inconsistency, many words appear in
the same text with different spellings, e.g.
and
in
1Qisaa and in several other texts. Yod represents not only IiI (usually: not short
i), but also ?ere:
(lQisaa 61:2),
(38:1). Unique for certain lexemes is the
175 In the past, criticisms were limited to the arguments based on orthography: Cross,
ALQ3 , 174-7; J. Lubbe, "Certain Implications of the Scribal Process of 4QSamc," RevQ 14
(1989-1990) 255--65; J. Cook, "Orthographical Peculiarities in the Dead Sea Biblical
Scrolls," ibid., 293-305; Ulrich, DSS, 111; J. Campbell, "Hebrew and Its Study at
Qumran," in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (ed. W. Horbury; Edinburgh, T & T
Clark, 1999) 38-52 (41); A. Lange, "Kriterien essenischer Texte," Qumran kontrovers:
Beitriige zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. J. Frey & H. Stegemann; EinblickeErgebnisse-Berichte-Reflexionen aus Tagungen der Katholischen Akademie Schwerte
6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003) 59-69. For a comprehensive review, see E.J.C. Tigchelaar,
"Assessing Emanuel Tov's 'Qumran Scribal Practice'," Transmission (2010) 173-207.
176 The idiosyncratic content of Qumran tefillin written in QSP orthography and
morphology is distinct from the pericopes prescribed by rabbinic literature and
contained in the tefillin written in the m system. This fact provides an external control
that supports the assumed existence of tlie QSP, unrelated to the question of whether or
not these teftl/in were sectarian.-+ Cohn, Teftllin, 73-5
177 For example, Mur pap Letter from Beit-Mashiko to Yeshua b. Galgula (Mur 42) 2 iD1i
ii'Jna;;; Masada 1, inscription 449 nm iii1iDii. See also b. Meg. 11a where iD1i1iDnN
(" Ahasuerus") is explained from iD1i ("head").
102
representation of I il especially in final position

mainly in
sometimes
Less frequent examples include
59:7;
40:5), apparently by
also in
analogy to
etc. in which the 'aleph belongs to the root. He as a mater
lectionis for I a I is very frequent at the end of words, such as in qtlth (e.g. i1motv)
and the second person masc. sing. suffix, e.g. i1:l::l',o, mlkkh, etc. He in final
in 1Qisaa 1:4 (m
and i1,1pi1 in
position for I e I occurs unexpectedly in
6:4 (m
'Aleph denotes I a I in final position:
34:11 (m i1'',.1.l),
66:8
(m i1'J::l}, and even in medial position:
1:17 (m r:nn),
30:31 (m i1::l').
The orthography of a complete section is exemplified in Table 22 (p.

105).
b. Morphological Features
M.G. Abegg, DJD XXXII (2010) 2.25-41; S. Fassberg, "The Preference for Lengthened Forms
in Qumran Hebrew," Meghillot 1 (Heb.; Haifa/Jerusalem: Haifa University Press/Bialik
Institute: 2003) 227-40; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, Text and umguage in Bible and Qumran
Qerusalem/Tel Aviv: Orient, 1960); S. Morag, "Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological
Observations," VT 38 (1988) 148--64; E. Qimron, "The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its
Relation to BH and MH," in Diggers at the Well, 232-44; W.M. Schniedewind, "Linguistic
Ideology in Qumran Hebrew," ibid., 235-52; See also the bibliography on p. 100.
The following six features characterize the QSP morphology+, which has
a tendency towards lengthened pronominal, verbal, and in one case
adverbial forms(-+ Fassberg*; Tov* 2004, App. 9 for statistical details):
Lengthened independent pronouns: hu 'ah, hi 'ah, 'atemah, 'atenah, hemah
(the latter form is also found in lll and the later books of m);
Lengthened pronominal suffixes for the second and third persons plural on
nouns and prepositions, e.g. bmh, bhmh, mlkmh;
Forms of the Qal imperfect (w)tqtwlw and (w)yq.twlw that serve in m as
pausal forms, but occur in these texts as free forms;
Forms of the Qal imperfect o with pronominal suffixes construed as yequ.tlenu
(et sim.) instead of the Tiberian forms yiqtelenu (et sim.); 178
The form qetaltemah for the second person plural in all conjugations;
Lengthened forms of
viz.,
i111o.l 79
Some of these features may have been created by analogy with

existing forms, while others may be dialectical. Certain forms are
described as archaic by Kutscher*, 52, 434-40; Qimron* 1986, 57; Cross*.
Fassberg* stressed the artificial nature of the lengthened forms.
178see I. Yeivin, "The Verbal Forms 1J'?t:11p',
in DSS in Comparison to the Babylonian
Vocalization," in Bible and Jewish History (ed. B. Uffenheimer; Heb. with Eng. summ.; Tel
. Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1971) 256-76.
179o. P. Wernberg-Moller, "Two Biblical Hebrew Adverbs in the Dialect of the Dead Sea
Scrolls," in A Tribute to Geza Vermes, Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History
(ed. P.R. Davies & R.T. White; JSOTSup 100; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) 21-35.
IC: The Biblical Texts Found in the fudean Desert
103
c. Scribal Features
The orthographic and morphological features, however inconsistent,

allow for a distinction between a group of texts displaying an
idiosyncratic practice and texts that do not display these features. These
features are accompanied by objective scribal features. - Tov, Scr. Prac.,
264-6
Writing of the divine names, especially the Tetragrammaton+, in paleoHebrew+ characters or Tetrapuncta+ in texts written in the square script. Within
the Qumran corpus, this practice is documented mainly in texts written in the
Qumran orthography and morphology. Since this practice is based on a certain
conception of the sanctity of the divine names, and since the approach of the
Qumran community to this issue is known also from other indicators, this
practice provides an independent control supporting the hypothesis of a QSP.
Scribal markings. The majority (84) of the 131 Hebrew Qumran texts
containing scribal markings of some kind, as listed in Tov* 2004, 279-85 (e.g. the
paragraphos+ sign), also reflect the orthographic and morphological features of the
QSP. In some groups, this percentage is very high, e.g. for cancellation dots+,
parenthesis signs+, the X-sign, and guide dots for drawing horizontal lines.
Frequent use of non-final letters in final position and final letters in nonfinal position. -+ p. 197
Crossing out of letters and words with a line.-+ p. 204
d. Contextual Adaptations
A. Rubinstein, "Notes on the Use of the Tenses in the Variant Readings of the Isaiah Scroll,"
VT 3 (1953) 92-5; id., "Formal Agreement of Parallel Clauses in the Isaiah Scroll," VT 4
(1954) 316-21.
The scribes of the texts written in the QSP often adapted seemingly
irregular forms to the context. This was illustrated by Rubinstein* 1954
with regard to the adaptation of
grammatical elements in 1Qisaa to
the parallel hemistich+ and the simplification of the tense system
(Rubinstein* 1953). These changes reflect a free approach to the biblical
text, as exemplified in Table 21 with additional examples (a similar
phenomenon in ll.l is exemplified in Table 13 [p. 85]).
Table 21
Contextual Changes in 1Qlsaa
Isa 1:23
m
1Qlsaa
Isa 14:30
. . r'J,,,
1ntv :JiTN , .,:;1
... 'l11, 1n1tD ':Ji11N r::::l.,1:;1 ( cf.
,,:Jm
c,,,,o T,tD)
0: 5 D)
(ln',NtD1 ltD,tD :Jl',:J
(I will kill your stock by famine) and it shall slay (the
very last of you).

J1,i1N I shall slay (cf. D)
104
Isa 46:11
i1JtDVN CO]N
(i1JN':::lN CO]N '1'1i:::li)
(I have spoken, so I will bring it to pass;) I have

designed <it>, so I will complete it.
i1JtDVN CO]N
I have designed it, so I will complete it.

Isa 51:19
!11
lOnJN '0
1Qlsaa
lOnJ' '0 (cf. 1\J)
e. Consistency and Statistical Analysis

The scribes writing in this scribal practice followed certain principles but,
at the same time, each scribe also maintained a certain level of
independence. This is clear from a comparison of overlapping texts
written in this scribal practice, such as 4Qisac//1Qisaa. These divergences
are also evident when one compares the two segments written by scribes
A (cols. I-XXVII, Isa 1:1-33:24) and B (cols. XXVIII-LIV, Isa 34:1-66:24) of
1Qisaa. 180 The two segments of that scroll must therefore be taken as two
separate units.
The idiosyncratic spellings and forms recorded above do not all appear in
every text. The combined group of features is probably most clearly visible in the
following 12 biblical texts and tefillin: 4QNumb, 1QDeuta, 4QDeutk2, 4QDeutm,
4QSamc, 1Qlsaa (especially scribe B), 2QJer, 4QXUC, 4QPhyl A, B, J-K, L-N. At
the same time, certain features are absent from some texts that otherwise display
most of the idiosyncrasies of the QSP. Thus N':J occurs in most texts belonging to
this group, but not in 1Qlsaa scribe AJ81
The following 28 biblical texts may be considered to have been written in the
QSP: lQDeuta, lQisaa, 2QExodb (?), 2QNumb (?), 2QDeutc (?), 2QJer, 4QExodb,j(?)
4QNumb, 4QDeuti,kl,k2,m, 4QRPa,b,c (4Q158, 364, 365), 4QSamc, 4Qisac, 4QXUCe,g,
4QPs 0 (?), 4QLam, 4QQoha, 11QPsa,b,c(?),d(?), and 4QPhyl A, B, G-1, J-K, L-N, 0,
P, Q. Virtually all the sectarian compositions written by the Qumran covenanters
(such as 1QHa, lQM, lQS, and the pesharim, but see n. 172) also belong to this
group. Although there is no characteristic representative of this group, 1Qisaa, 182
18one notes the preponderance of the short form of the second person sing. masc. suffix
in nouns, prepositions, and verbs (l-) in the section written by scribe A, in contrast to
the longer form (;'!:l-) in the section written by scribe B. Similar differences are visible in
the spelling of (N)':l and ;'!(1):l.- Tov* 2012
18 1 m, in sharp contrast to the aforementioned Qumran texts, does not reflect the features
described here as characteristic of the QSP. Most of the full spellings do not occur in m,
not even
(with the exception of Jer 33:8), while
occurs only rarely. However, 11
sporadic "typical Qumran" forms do occur in m: ;"TlnN (Gen 31:6; Ezek 13:11, 20; 34:17),
(Ezek 40:16),
(Ezek 23:48, 49),
(Isa 34:16),
(Amos 4:3), ;"T:li'
(Exod 13:16),
Oer 29:25). Whatever explanation is given for these sporadic
exceptions, m does not reflect most of the special forms of the QSP.
182 Aramaic influence and weakening of the gutturals is more recognizable in this scroll
than in other texts.- Table 22, "Language"; Kutscher, Lanxuaxe, 91-5, 505-11
105
which contains the longest Qumran text of a biblical book, is a good example of
the QSP.
6. Variants in the Qumran Scrolls
The Qumran texts, as well as differing from one another, relate to m, \1J,
m., and the other texts in a ramified system of agreements and
disagreements. The more significant deviations from m in the Qumran
texts are described inch. 7s1, 4, 9-13, 18, 22, 23, as well as below.
Several groups of texts are recognized on the basis of variants in the Qumran
texts ...... 7. Among these groups, them-like and pre-Samaritan texts have been
described in detail in sections Al and B4. The tables adduced in this section
exemplify some of the more characteristic types of variants found in the Qumran
texts, without exhausting the evidence. The tables exemplify, among other things,
the readings found in texts written in the QSP+, represented in Table 22 by
lQisaa. 4QSama, described in Table 23, presents features of groups 3 and 4.
Some texts exemplified by lQisaa in Table 22 display a great number of
differences in orthography+ and morphology+, whereas the relation is reversed in
the texts exemplified by 4QSama in Table 23: differences in morphology and
orthography are few, in contrast to the large number of other types of differences
in both major and minor details. Most of the variants listed for 4QSama in Table
23 are substantial.
Table 22
Classified Differences between m and 1Qlsaa in Isa 1:1-8

1. Orthography+
m
2
3
1Qlsaa
':l
!'\'?
1i1.J1p
(2x) 1'\1'?
111ll
'?1:l
'?I:J'?
'?:l1
6
!'\'?
(2x) 1'\'?1
7
'?1n'?
'?1:li
iDI'\1i
1'\1'?
1iD:::l1n
(2x) 1'\1'?1
c'?jl'\
i1ril'\
i1:lQ:l
I(
i1n11'\
i1:10:l
106

2. Language
lQistf
1i1' lliV'
1i1'lltv'
'l:l':::l
'l:l,,:::l
1i1'lll
i1'!1ll
1i1'pm
2
7
n::>::li11:l::l
i1'pm
i11:li11
n::>IC::ll:l::l
i1inm
nin:l1
Ci11
Omission of 'ayin indicates the weakening of laryngeals and pharyngeals. Supralinear+ letter added.
Supralinear letter; addition of waw is probably due to
Aramaic influence.
Short theophoric names are more frequent in the
Second Temple period.
Supralinear letter; see the previous item.
See 5b above.
Supralinear letter; the addition of an 'aleph is probably
influenced by the Aramaic root l::lN: (= l::li1 Heb.)
The variant probably reflects an Aramaic verbal form
for the third person fern. sing.
Notes 1. Supralinear+ letters concern elements that were not included in the first
writing ...... p. 204
2. The linguistic variants described above are typical of the scrolls written
in the osr+, while the variants included in the next category are not.
3. Other Differences
2
fiN:ii
'l:lll
'l:lll1
different word patterns

,;'?.v 11:ll:ltv1 cf. Lev 26:32
ii11
i1J1,1:l::l
Table 23
Differences between m and 4QSama in 1 Sam 1:22-28

There are only three differences in orthography (vv 23 m
'-,:;,).All other differences relate to matters of content.
m
22
4QSama
iiVN: 1ll
1ll
[CiV
CiV
c'-,,v
1i:::l1
23
24 i11:lll m'-,vm
c'-,1v 1ll
? i11i1']
i1''iV
tv'-,(DI:) ip:::l[ j:::l i::l:::l]
en'-,,
i11i1'
cf. \B 5 0:: D
cf. \B 5 0:: D
1i1'n[ n:11]
[1"n] 'l:l' '-,,:;,
T::ll:l
1mM '-,vn,
i1w;i'-,w;i
Notes
1i11N:':::l'1 Cl:lll] i!JJ,i7
itDN:[::>] rbtii[
1i1':::lN:
i11i1''-, i11:l'l:l' C'l:l'l:l i1tDll']
= \B; ..... p. 256

cf. \B; ..... p. 277
=IB
cf. 11>; ..... p. 236
=IB
=IB
24 m 1'-,tv, 28 m
107
[ 1.!);,; nt\
25
28
11::lniD'1
CiD 1nniD',
ii1ii'"
t:lniD['1]
[mii'" 1]nniDm ciD 1ii[:nllm]
cf. 2:11 - p. 255
7. Classification of the Scrolls According to Textual Character

Debe!, "Variant Literary Editions"; R.S. Hendel, "Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the
Hebrew Bible after Qumran," The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T.H. Lim & J.J.
Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 281-302; Kreuzer, "Text," 132-8; Lange,
"They Confirmed"; id., Handbuch, 1-32, 143-57; id., "Plurality" (2010) 47-58; E. Ulrich,
"Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism," in
Grossman, Rediscovering (2010) 145-61 (15fr60).
Due to the absence of objective criteria for classifying the Qumran

scrolls, 183 they are classified here according to their textual character.
Only 121 of the 210-212 biblical scrolls can be classified in this way. 184 In
this classification, an attempt is made to characterize and analyze three
groups and a cluster of texts, three of which were unknown before the
Qumran discoveries (2, 3, 4).1 85 The QSP+ group is listed as an appendix
to the classification, since these texts have different textual backgrounds.
183 I. Young, "The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text," in Feasts and
Fasts, A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown (ed. M. Dacy et a!.; Mandelbaum
Studies in Judaica 11; Sydney: University of Sydney, 2005) 81-139 attempted to record
the variants by objective criteria. Young calculated the number of variants (deviations
from m) relative to the number of words in the scrolls excluding orthographic variants,
while not differentiating between small details and major content variations.
184 The remaining texts are too fragmentary for textual analysis. In this calculation, the
following principles are employed, which show that the results are approximate rather
than precise: (1) A few questionable attributions to textual groups are included in the
statistics. (2) In accord with statistical probability, texts that are equally close to m and
tu in the Torah and tom and 1\3 in the other books are counted as m, the most common
text group. (3) Texts written according to the QSP are not included in the statistics; they
are counted in other groups in accord with their textual affiliation. (4) Since the texts of
the tu-group are not evidenced for books other than the Torah, statistics for the Torah
are separated from those of the other books. All statistics, based on the data in Scr. Prac.,
279-85, 332-5 with slight changes, differ slightly from the previous formulation in Tov,
HB, GB, and Qumran (2008) 145. Lange* 2010 presents a different statistical analysis, in
which the m-group features less prominently in the Torah, and the non-aligned texts
more so.
185 At a second stage, we describe the distribution of these groups in the individual Bible
books. - Tov* 2008, 151-3. Even with the limitation of the haphazard preservation of
the evidence, it is relevant to examine, for example, the preservation of them-like scrolls
in each of the Scripture books. For some criticisms of the attempt to recognize four, at
an earlier stage five, groups of scrolls, see Davila (p. 158, n. 7); Segal* 2007; Ulrich*
(2010); Hendel* 2010, 291-5; S.W. Crawford, "Understanding the Textual History of the
108
In the 46 Torah texts that are sufficiently extensive for analysis, 22

(48%) are m-like (or, in a few cases, are equally close to m and ill), 5
exclusively reflect ill (11 %), one reflects (2%), and 18 are non-aligned+
(39%). In the remainder of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, in the 75 texts
that are sufficiently extensive for analysis, 33 texts (44%) are m-like (or, in
a few cases, are equally close tom and), 5 reflect (7%), and 37 form a
cluster of non-aligned texts (49%). Thus, the overall preponderance of mlike and non-aligned texts in the Qumran corpus is evident; in the Torah,
more texts are m-like, while in the other books non-aligned+ texts prevail,
with them-like group coming a close second. -+ p. 188. These percentages
reflect the reality of the texts assembled and copied by the Qumran
community, and differ much from the reality of the other Judean Desert
sites. At the latter sites, all the texts reflect only the medieval m, both
those from the time of the settlement at Qumran (found at Masada) and
those written during the Bar-Kochba revolt (the other sites).-+ p. 29
(1) m-like Texts 186
The m-like texts constitute the largest group within the Qumran biblical
corpus.-+ p. 31; Tov* 2004, 332-5. These texts are exemplified by 1Qisab
in Tables 1 and 2. The scribes who copied these texts from protoMasoretic texts such as those found at other Judean Desert sites took
certain liberties and were less precise than the scrolls from which they
copied. Yet, the scrolls are very close to m and during the first two
generations of Qumran research they, too, were named proto-Masoretic.
(2) Pre-Samaritan Texts
The pre-Samaritan Qumran texts 4QpaleoExodm, 4QExod-Levf, 4QNumb,

4QRPa (4Q158), and 4QRPb (4Q364) reflect the characteristic features of
ill, with the exception of its ideological readings, but they occasionally
deviate from it. -+ pp. 90-93. The ill-group was probably popular in
Palestine.
(3) Texts Close to the Presumed Hebrew Source of
Lange, Handbuch (2009) 122-38; E. Tov, "The Qumran Hebrew Texts and the Septuagint: An
Overview," in Die Septuaginta: Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte (ed. S. Kreuzer et al.; WUNT;
Mohr Siebeck; Ttibingen, 2011), forthcoming.
Hebrew Bible: A New Proposal," in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed.
N. David et al.; FRLANT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming).
l86Lange, Handbuch, 16 and passim uses the term "semimasoretic texts."
109
Although no identical or almost identical text to the presumed Hebrew

source of has been found at Qumran, a few texts are very close to that
translation:18? 4QJerb,d bear a strong resemblance to in characteristic
details. -+ ch. 7Bl. Similarly close to, though not to the same degree, are
4QDeutq (-+ ch. 4, Table 8 [pp. 249-50]), 4QSam 3 (close to and Luc;
-+group 4), 4QSamb, and 11QPs3 Psalm 151.188
(4) A Cluster of Non-Aligned Texts
Many Qumran texts are not exclusively close to m, , or ll.l and are
therefore considered non-aligned. The employment of this term implies
that the texts under consideration follow an inconsistent pattern of
agreements and disagreements with m, , and ll.l and that they also
contain readings not known from other sources. 189 This cluster of texts
does not form a group like the others since the latter share common
features, while the non-aligned texts differ from one another. The texts
that are most manifestly non-aligned are those that contain (groups of)
readings that diverge significantly from the other texts, such as 4QRpc--e
(4Q365-367) and 4QJosh 3 -+ ch. 7s13, 23.190 A special sub-group of nonaligned texts are scrolls written for a specific purpose, viz., "excerpted"
Scripture texts, such as 4QExodd, 4QDeutkl,q, and 4QCant3,b and
liturgical texts, including most of the Psalms texts from caves 4 and 11.
-+ ch. 7s18.1 91 The non-aligned character of some texts may be misleading
when the few preserved readings display a number of insignificant
agreements and disagreements with the other sources, as in 4QDeutc,h.
The number of these texts is probably inflated due to our limited
knowledge of the ancient scrolls.
As an appendix to the classification, we mention the scrolls written in the QSP
that reflect different textual backgrounds, and not one common typology. -+ 5.
Thus, 1Qisa 3 could have been copied from them-like lQisab or a similar text and
4QNumb could have been copied from a text like tu, but these assumptions
187 There is insufficient evidence for speculating on the internal relationship between the
texts that are close to .
188 on all these texts, see Tov* 2011. 4QNumb is not included in this group since it is, first
and foremost, close to l.U. Likewise, occasional agreements with \IJ and mere statistical
agreement in insignificant details are not included in the statistics.
189 For the data on the texts, see Tov* 2004, 332-5.
190 4QSam 3 holds a special position in this regard, since it is closely related to the Vorlage of
, while also reflecting independent features.
191 In our view, these scrolls are not biblical scrolls in the usual sense of the word, and
therefore the number of Scripture scrolls should be decreased by about forty. However,
our analysis follows the classification of the scrolls determined by the scholars
publishing them. When abandoning that classification, the number of non-aligned texts
is much smaller. Furthermore, the large number of statistically independent texts results
from the nature of the transmission, causing every manuscript to differ from the others.
110
cannot be verified. The 28 texts written in the QSP (not all equally convincing),
often described as typical Qumran texts, comprise a sizable group among the 121
reasonably large biblical texts (23%), but this percentage is not included in the
overall statistical analysis, since these texts have a different textual background.
If, indeed, a large segment of the Qumran scrolls were penned by Qumran
scribes, it is remarkable that they contain no sectarian readings. 192
If all the aforementioned groups and texts were copied at Qumran, or if, as we
believe, only some were copied there while others were brought from elsewhere,
the coexistence of the different categories of texts in the Qumran caves is
noteworthy. The fact that these different texts were found in the same caves
reflects a textual plurality at Qumran and in the country as a whole between the
3'd century BCE and the 1'1 century CE. -+ pp. 186-7. While no solid conclusions
can be drawn about the approach of the Qumranites to the biblical text, it is safe
to say that they paid no special attention to textual differences such as those
described here. For one thing, no specific text was preferred in their sectarian
writings. -+Lange, Handbuch, 158-65. At the same time, the great number of mlike texts found at Qumran probably reflects the dominance of m in several
sectors in Israel. These were the texts that the covenanters took with them when
they moved from their settlements to the Judean Desert.
8. Contribution of the Judean Desert Scrolls to Biblical Research
The Judean Desert texts contribute much to our knowledge of the biblical
text at the time of the Second Temple, a period for which there was
hardly any Hebrew evidence before 1947. Until that time, scholars based
their analyses mainly on manuscripts from the Middle Ages. The Qumran
evidence enriches our knowledge in the following areas.
Readings not known previously help us to better understand many details
in the biblical text, often pertaining to matters of substance. -+ chapters 4, 6, 7
The textual variety reflected in the four groups of texts described in 7
provides a good overview of the condition of the biblical text in the Second
Temple period ...... ch. 3c3
The scrolls provide much background information on the technical aspects
of the copying of biblical texts and their transmission in the Second Temple
period. -+ ch. 4A
The reliability of the reconstruction of the Vorlage+ of the ancient translations, especially l\J, is supported much by the Qumran texts. 193 -+ pp. 122-7
192 Thus G.J. Brooke, "E Pluribus Unum"; id., "Deuteronomy 5-6 in the Phylacteries from
Qumran Cave 4," in Paul, Emanuel, 57-70; E. Ulrich, "The Absence of 'Sectarian
Variants' in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran," in The Bible as Book, 179-95.
On the other hand, the following scholars believe that the scrolls do include sectarian
readings: van der Kooij, Textzeugen, 95-6; P. Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts in
Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1Qlsaa OSOTSup 34; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001).
193This claim was already made by G.R. Driver, "Hebrew Scrolls," JTS n.s. 2 (1951) 17-30
(25-7).
111
The texts from the other sites in the Judean Desert demonstrate that m
was the sole text used at those locations. This conclusion is of major
importance for understanding the realm of influence of that text. -+ p. 29
D. Additional Witnesses
Several texts were in existence in ancient Israel beyond those known
today. These sources include texts that are not biblical in the usual sense
of the word (thus 1-3, 5).
1. Silver Rolls from Ketef Hinnom
G. Barkay, "The Priestly Benediction on the Ketef Hinnom Plaques," Cathedra 52 (1989) 37-
76 (Heb.).
Two minute silver rolls (amulets?), dating to the 71h or 6th century BCE,
contain the priestly blessing (Num 6:24-26) in a formulation that differs
in some details from m+,
plate 1*. Roll II lacks the words 1m'1,
"He will deal graciously with you" (v 25) and
';,
"The LORD
will bestow his favor upon you" (v 26). Since these documents are not
biblical texts, their contribution to textual criticism is limited.
2. The Nash Papyrus
W.F. Albright, "A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus," JBL 56
(1937) 145-76; S.A. Cook, "A Pre-Massoretic Biblical Papyrus," Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology 25 (1903) 34--56; E. Eshel, "4QDeutn" (1991); N. Peters, Die iilteste
Abschrift der zehn Gebote, der Papyrus Nash (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1905).
The so-called Nash papyrus, dating to the 1st or 2nd century BCE, and
discovered in Egypt in 1902, contains the Decalogue (Exod 20:2-17 = Deut
5:6-21) followed by the introductory formula Deut 4:45 and the shema'
pericope (Deut 6:4-5 are preserved). The Scripture verses of Deuteronomy are thus presented in a different order, while the Decalogue itself
contains a mixed formulation of the text of Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus
20. In this composite text, the argument for the Sabbath commandment
contains Exod 20:11 rather than Deut 5:14-15. However, details in the text
of that commandment are close to Deuteronomy texts such as 4QDeutn,
4QMez A, 4QPhyl G, and 8QPhyl -+ Eshel* 1991, in all of which the
Exodus pericope replaces the text of Deuteronomy or is added to it. The
orthography of the Nash papyrus is fuller than that of m.
scrolls were discovered in 1979 in the excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem.
Their spelling is like that of m with the exception of the pronominal suffix ending with a
he in nouns:
miskaboh, i1'?Nj goaloh (?).
112
Apparently, this composite text reflects a liturgical text. Its content

may be compared with several tefillin and mezuzot from Qumran. - 3
3. Tefillin and Mezuzot from the Judean Desert
M. Baillet, DJD III; D. Barthelemy, DJD I; G.J. Brooke, "Deuteronomy 5-6 in the Phylacteries
from Qumran Cave 4," in Paul, "Emanuel," 57-70; Cohn, Tefil/in; K.G. Kuhn, "Phylakterien
aus Hohle 4 von Qumran," Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.Hist. Kl. 1957, 5-31; J.T. Milik, DJD II, III, VI; M. Morgenstern & M. Segal, DJD XXXVIII,
183-91; D. Nakman, "The Contents and Order of the Biblical Sections in the Tefillin from
Qumran and Rabbinic Halakhah: Similarity, Difference, and Some Historical Conclusions,"
Cathedra 112 (2004) 19-44 (Heb.); J.H. Tigay, "tpylyn," EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute,
1982) 8.883-95; Y. Yadin, Tefillin (Phylacteries) from Qumran (XQ Phyl 1-4) Oerusalem:
IES I Shrine of the Book, 1969).
Many fragments of biblical texts contained in mezuzot, head-tefillin, and

arm-tefillin include parts of Exodus 12-13 and Deuteronomy 5-6, 10-11,
32 (-plate 10*), partly reflecting the instructions of the Rabbis and partly
containing additional segments. 195- n. 176; pp. 218-9; Cohn*. Details in
the biblical texts contained in these tefillin and mezuzot often differ from
m, 196 while sometimes agreeing with other ancient witnesses, among
them several Qumran scrolls.- ch. 7s12 (4QPhyl A, B, J)
4. The Severus Scroll and R. Meir's Torah
Habermann, Ketav, 166-75; D.S. Loewinger, "The Torah Scroll That Was Hidden in the
Synagogue of Severus in Rome and Its Relation to the Isaiah Scrolls from the Judean Desert
and 'R. Meir's Torah'," Beth Mikra 15 (1970) 237-63 (Heb.); J.P. Siegel, The Severus Scroll and
1Qlsa (SBLMasS 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975).
Rabbinic literature preserves various pieces of information on biblical

scrolls whose text differed from m. - 6. The largest number of such
testimonies refers to a Torah scroll that Titus brought to Rome as booty
after the destruction of the Temple 197 or, according to a different
tradition (Gen. Rabbnti) was brought to Rome by the exiles themselves. At
a later period, this scroll was given by Alexander Severus (reigned 222235 CE) to a synagogue that was being built with his permission. In
rabbinic literature several individual words are quoted from this Torah
tefillin and mezuzot from the 2nd and 1" centuries BCE until the 1'' and 2nd centuries
were discovered in the Judean Desert, mainly at Qumran and also in Wadi
Murabba'at and Nahal Se'elim (publication: Baillet*, Barthelemy*, Kuhn*, Milik*,
Morgenstern* & Segal*, Yadin*).
19 6some texts were possibly written from memory, as permitted by b. Meg. 18b: )'':l!:ln
:m::J:-T 1a l(';li.J
mma1, "Tefillin and mezuzot may be written out without a written
source <that is, from memory>."
197According to Josephus, Bell. Jud. VII 150, 162, "a copy of the Law" was removed from the
Temple by Titus and taken to Rome.
CE
ID: Additional Witnesses
113
scroll, while other quotations, probably from the same source, are
attributed to "R. Meir's Torah," since the Torah scroll from the
synagogue of Severus was apparently known to R. Meir, a scribe (2nd
century cE).l98 Although the original quotations from the Severus Scroll
have often been corrupted in the rabbinic sources, they can usually be
reconstructed with some degree of probability, as was done by Siegel*.
From the scant information known about the contents of the Severus
Scroll, it appears that its characteristic features are the weakening of the
gutturals(-+ Table 17 re w. [p. 89] and Table 22 re some Qumran texts [pp.
105-6]), the writing of non-final letters in final position -+ p. 197, and the
interchange+ of similar letters, as exemplified in Table 24. Thirty-three
readings from the scroll are known, but from the evidence preserved in
the quotations, it is sometimes difficult to determine the precise
difference between this Torah text and the other texts. Loewinger* and
Siegel* emphasize the typological resemblance between the readings of
this scroll and 1Qisa 3 , both of which are characterized by an imprecise
textual transmission displaying a free approach. -+ p. 184. In view of
these characteristics, it is very unlikely that this scroll, if indeed it is the
one that was brought by Titus from the Temple, was the Temple scroll.
Table 24
Select Differences between mand the Severus Scroll
Gen 1:31
Gen 3:21
Sev.
Gen 25:33
::J1t:l
m1:l::l
Sev.
Gen 27:2
!lH
Gen 27:27
m+
Sev.
Sev.
Gen 36:10
very good
(sources: MS Paris, Farhi Bible)
as it were: death is good
11.V mm:l ( = all other ancient texts)
garments of skins
mm:l (Gen. Rabbati)
as it were: garments of light
:nt:l
Sev.
m
Sev.
he sold his birthright

(Gen. Rabbati, MS Paris, Farhi Bible)
he sold his sword (?)
l:l1" the day of my death
the-day-of-my-death (MS Paris, Farhi Bible)
i11tl:' field
i110 (MS Paris, Farhi Bible)= 4QPhyl G Deut 5:21
i11l1 )::J the son of Adah
the-son-of-Adah (MS Paris, Farhi Bible)
198 The main sources quoting from the Severus Scroll are Gen. Rab., Gen. Rabbati of Moses
ha-Darshan (a collection of midrashim from the 11th century), the Far}:li Bible (14'h
century), and the MS Hebr. 31, Fol. 399, Bib!. Nat., Paris, all of which are described by
Siegel* and Loewinger*.
114
5. Non-Biblical Sources: Quotations and "Rewritten Scripture" Texts

G.J. Brooke, "New Perspectives on the Bible and Its Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls,"
in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran (ed. D. Dimant & R. Kratz; Tiibingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 19-37; A. Lange, "The Status of the Biblical Texts"(-+ p. 95, n. 157); id.,
Handbuch (2009) 158-68; Tov, HB, GB, and Qumran (2008) 27-42, 136-9.
The Bible text as quoted, excerpted, and rewritten in antiquity evidences

a textual reality that should be taken into consideration together with
direct sources such as described elsewhere in this chapter. Quotations in
rabbinic literature are identical to the proto-Masoretic text-+ p. 33, n. 24,
while the Qumran non-biblical scrolls reflect many early variants.
Several non-biblical Qumran compositions; both sectarian and non-sectarian,
freely quote from and allude to passages in the Bible. For example, the sectarian
Qumran Hodayot and Rules, as well as non-Qumranic compositions such as
4QNon-Canonical Psalms A-B (4Q380-381) are replete with biblical quotations
and allusions. Most of these quotations are free, involving changes to the biblical
text, which therefore must be used carefully in a text-critical analysis. In some
cases, variants are reflected in these texts, such as 4QComm Gen A (4Q252) I 2
,,,, ("shall dwell") form )11' ("shall abide [?]") in Gen 6:3 and ibid. V 3 c'-,nii =
lU 1'-,n for m
in Gen 49:10. -+ DJD XXII, 197, 205. So-called "rewritten
Scripture" compositions such as 4-llQTemple and Jubilees also reflect many
variants.-+ pp. 189-90. The textual background of several compositions has been
studied, but no specific biblical text or text group is reflected in these texts.
-+Lange* 2002,27 and id., 2009. For a discussion and bibliography, see Tov* 2008.
Different views have been voiced regarding the text-critical value of the
biblical text quoted by the pesharim. A positive position was taken by the editors
of textual editions that incorporated readings from these pesharim in their textual
apparatuses: BHS+ for 1QpHab, HUB+ for the pesharim on Isaiah, and the Biblia
Qumranica for the Minor Prophets. On the other hand, some scholars cautioned
that many so-called deviations from m in the pesharim and commentaries were
due to contextual exegesis.1 99 However, although such
is found in the
pesharim, including very few cases of sectarian exegesis, 20 many, if not most,
deviations in the lemmas in these pesharim probably reflect variants found in the
biblical manuscripts used by the commentator.
Excerpted and abbreviated biblical texts contribute to textual criticism,

but not to the literary analysis of the biblical books.-+ pp. 320-21
199E.g., G. Molin, "Der Habakkukkomentar von 'En Fesha in der alttestamentlichen
Wissenschaft," TZ 8 (1952) 340-57; G.]. Brooke, "The Biblical Texts in the Qumran
Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?" in Early jewish and Christian
Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (ed. C.A. Evans & W.F. Stinespring;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 85-100 with references to earlier studies; id., "Some
Remarks on 4Q252 and the Text of Genesis," Textus 19 (1998) 1-25.
most clear-cut examples are 1QpHab VIII 3 )1;"1 (m Hab 2:5]";"1); 1QpHab XI 3 C;"!'ill10
(m Hab 2:15 C;"!'i1llr.l). -+ W.H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary
from Qumran OBL Monograph Series XI; Philadelphia, 1959) 113-8
10: Additional Witnesses
115
6. Texts That Have Been Lost

Ginsburg, Introduction, 430-37; H.L. Strack, Prolegomena critica in Vetus Testamentum
hebraicum (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1873) 14-29.
The texts known to us comprise only a certain percentage of the Hebrew

Scripture scrolls that circulated in antiquity. In the 71h or 5th century BCE,
the number of such texts may have been minimal, but in the last few
centuries BCE many texts must have circulated in ancient Israel beyond
those found in the Judean Desert. -+ Tov, "Diffusion." Some such lost
texts, about which a few details are known from medieval works, have
been reviewed by Ginsburg*: Sefer ("codex") Hilleli, Sefer Zanbuqi, Sefer
Yerushalmi, Sefer
Sefer Sinai, and Sefer Babli.
II. THE ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS
A. Use of the Ancient Translations in Textual Criticism

Aejmelaeus, Trail; Barr, Comparative Philology, 238-72; id., "The Typology of Literalism in
Ancient Biblical Translations," MSU 15 (NAWG I, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1979) 279-325; S.P. Brock,
"Bibeli.ibersetzungen, I," TRE (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1980) Vl.161 ff.; id.,
"Translating the Old Testament," in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour
of B. Lindars, SFF (ed. D.A. Carson & H.G.M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988) 87-98; S.R. Driver, Samuel, xxxiii-xxxix; N. Fernandez Marcos, "The
Use of the Septuagint in the Criticism of the Hebrew Bible," Sefarad 47 (1987) 59-72; M.H.
Goshen-Gottstein, "Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-Critical Use of the
Septuagint," Textus 3 (1963) 130-58; M.L. Margolis, "Complete Induction for the
Identification of the Vocabulary in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament with Its Semitic
Equivalents: Its Necessity and the Means of Obtaining It," JAOS 30 (1910) 301-12; Mulder,
Mikra; Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, I (ed. M. Saeb0; Gi:ittingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996); I. Soisalon-Soininen, Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax
(Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, AASF, SARJA-Ser. B, 237; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987); Tov, TCU (1997); id., "Biliteral Exegesis of Hebrew Roots in
the Septuagint?" HB, GB, and Qumran (2008) 378-97; Talmon, "Ancient Versions"; J. Ziegler,
Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (AT Abh XII.3, 1934).
1. Background
In ancient times and in the Middle Ages, the Bible was translated into
different languages, the most important of which are Greek, Aramaic,
Syriac, Latin, and Arabic. These translations are very significant for the
textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, since this discipline collects all the
relevant material that is available from antiquity and the Middle Ages,
including material derived from translated works. It goes without saying
that these texts cannot be used in their own languages, since the textual
discussion can only take into consideration Hebrew data. Therefore,
116
elements of the Hebrew texts underlying the various ancient translations

need to be reconstructed. This reconstructed text from which a
translation was made is called the parent text or Vorlage of a translation,
that is, the text that lay before the translator.
The importance of the ancient translations for the textual criticism of the Bible
was emphasized greatly before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, since before
that time manuscripts of the ancient translations were the earliest sources for our
knowledge of the biblical text. In the absence of ancient Hebrew material,
scholars attached much importance to the ancient translations, since their early
attestations (in the case
papyrus fragments from the 2"d and 1st centuries BCE
onwards and manuscripts from the 4th century CE onwards) preceded the
medieval manuscripts of m by many centuries.
The Qumran discoveries could have decreased the value of the ancient
translations, since reliance on Hebrew texts is preferable to the use of ancient
translations whose Hebrew source is not known. However, the Qumran scrolls
are very fragmentary, and even if they were complete, would remain highly
significant since it reflects important textual traditions differing from m, l.ll, and
the Qumran texts. Several important readings are also reflected in the other
translations, even though ([ s D are closely affiliated with m (together: m+ ). The
Qumran discoveries enhanced the importance of also in other ways, since the
agreements between the two improved our confidence in the reconstruction
procedure.- 5
The views of scholars are divided concerning the feasibility of reconstructing
the Hebrew text used by the ancient translators. Some stress the ability of
scholars to reconstruct words or sentences, while others emphasize the
difficulties involved. Some general rules for reconstruction have been formulated
- 5, but they are of limited value. For even if scholars were to agree concerning
abstract rules, the very use of one particular rule or another is based on subjective
opinion.
Most of the rules formulated for the reconstruction of the Hebrew source of
the ancient translations were made in reference to
since that translation yields
more information relevant to the study of the Bible than all the other translations
together. Most of the rules for the reconstruction from also apply to the other
translations.
In reconstructing the Hebrew source of ancient translations, one can take
several points of departure. Every reconstruction is made with m in mind due to
the large degree of congruence between m and the presumed Vorlage+ of the
ancient translations, and because of the centrality of m in the textual procedure.
The centrality of m in the reconstruction of the Vorlage of the ancient versions
does not involve a value judgment on the central position of that text; it merely
reflects a convention for which no better alternative has been suggested. A first
convention in our approach to the ancient translations is that when the content of
an ancient translation is identical tom, in all probability its Hebrew Vorlage+ was
also identical to m. At the same time, this information does not simplify the task
of reconstruction; since identity in content is not easily definable, all the words in
the translation must be analyzed in detail.
In the case of the Targumim, D, and usually also s, their Hebrew source was
almost completely identical to the consonantal framework of m - p. 29, and
IIA: Use of Ancient Translations in Textual Criticism
117
therefore reconstruction is limited to a small number of deviations from m. This

identity is less pronounced in the case of l\3, and in some of its chapters there are
very few overlaps with m. These data should be kept in mind when referring to
the differences between m and the ancient translations. Since differences between
m and the Hebrew sources of the ancient translations are often very significant
for exegesis and our understanding of the textual transmission, the analysis of
the ancient translations is a necessary part of textual criticism.
Textual critics are especially interested in those cases in which a critical
analysis of the versions yields a difference in meaning presumably resulting from
deviations from m in the Hebrew Vorlage of one of the ancient translations.
However, here lies the difficulty: how can we know in which cases this Vorlage
indeed differed from m? Although there are thousands of differences between m
and the translations, only a fraction of them were created because of a divergence
between m and the Vorlage+ of the translation. Most of the differences were
created by unrelated factors. These are inner-translational factors, especially in
the area of exegesis ..... 2, which created many renderings that are now described
as differences between the translation and m. From a text-critical point of view,
such differences are not significant since they were created by the translator and
do not indicate a Hebrew source that deviated from m. 201 Another category of
inner-translational factors( ..... 4) includes corruptions in the textual transmission
of the translation that caused apparent differences between it and m.
The implication of this procedure is that before one makes use of a translation
within the textual praxis, one has to be aware of all the intricacies of the
exegetical system and translation technique of the translator of a given unit
(book). Information of this type does not relate directly to the Hebrew source of
the translation, but one needs to have a thorough knowledge of the character of
each translation unit in order to reconstruct elements of its source ...... 3
Tools have been developed for reconstructing the Hebrew source of a
translation that has been made faithfully (literally), since such a translation
usually employed the same equivalent for a particular Hebrew word or
grammatical structure in most of its occurrences. On the other hand, if the
translation was made freely or even paraphrastically, it is difficult and often
impossible to reconstruct the Hebre"Y Vorlage+. Hence, an overall knowledge of
the exegesis (--+ 2) and representation of Hebrew constructions in specific
translation units (..... 3) is essential in order to be able to embark on the
reconstruction activity ...... 5
2. Exegesis
Within the present framework, there is only room for the most essential
information about the translators' exegesis. This topic encompasses
many secondary areas, and the reader is advised to peruse the
bibliography relevant to the translations to be analyzed below.
201 At another level, that of the exegesis of the biblical text, these instances are significant
since they provide early evidence of Bible exegesis.
118
a. Linguistic Exegesis
Every translation reflects linguistic exegesis that is essential to this
undertaking. This exegesis consists of three levels.
Linguistic identifications that identify all forms in the source language and the
connection between the words. Without this identification, the words of the
source text cannot be translated. Among other things, an analysis of most (but
not all) morphological+ constituents of the nouns and verbs is essential for the
translation procedure. For example, the translator needed to analyze the
morphological nature of the word being translated in order to determine, for
example, whether it was a noun or a verb. If it was a verb, the translator m?y
have taken further steps in his analysis. In accordance with the grammatical
concepts that developed from medieval times onwards, translators may have had
an understanding of the root of the verb, as well as its conjugation (binyan),
aspect, and tense. After all, translators distinguished between such homographic
consonantal forms as the pi 'el wayedabber ("he spoke") and the hiph 'il wayadber
("he subdued"; correctly rendered by lfi in Ps 18:48 and 47:4 with forms of
imoTCiaaw). 202 By the same token, a homograph such as ,N,' necessitated that the
translator decide whether it is derived from a root r 'h, "to see," or from yr', "to
fear," that is, in the Tiberian vocalization either
"they will see" (passim in
the Bible), or
"fear!" (plural), e.g. Ps 34:10. The same decision had to be
made regarding N,,,, which may be derived from either r 'h (NTJ, "and he saw")
or yr' (NTJ = NT'J, "and he feared").
Semantic exegesis of all the words in the source language. Before turning to
equivalents, the translator has to determine the meaning of each Hebrew word.
For example, any form of the verb NtDJ can be taken in at least four entirely
different ways. Brock* 1988, 87 showed how the different translations of Gen 4:7
nNtD
CN N,',ii reflect four different ways of understanding that verb. Most
identifications are seemingly based on triliteral Hebrew verbs, but it does not
necessarily follow that the translators followed a system of triliteral roots. The
evidence merely shows that the translators were able to draw on various sources,
enabling them to obtain the necessary semantic information. In most cases (e.g.
, ..
1":J!J), all three letters were necessary for the identification, while in some
cases two letters sufficed. Thus, in the weak verbs (patterns N"!J, '"!J, J"!J, N"!J, !J"!J,
,, ..!!, N"',, "",), often only two radicals were used for semantic identification, and
the translators often erred in this regard ...... Tov* 2008
Determining the equivalents of words of the source language in the target
language on the basis of the translator's knowledge and sensitivity in that
language.
202 According to another scenario, translators had only a vague understanding of such
abstractions as conjugations. It sufficed for them to distinguish between a form
reflecting "something like the pi 'e/" and a form incorporating "something like the
hiph'il." After all, it sufficed to distinguish between wydbr 1 (= wayedabber) carrying
meaning 1 and wydbr 2 (wayadber) carrying meaning 2. The actual reading or
pronunciation ("vocalization" in later times) and parsing are not a necessary part of the
translation process.
JJ9
All translations reflect at least these three levels of linguistic exegesis.

Nevertheless, only a few translation units (such as Aquila+) are confined to such
exegesis. As a rule, translations also reflect the first two types of exegesis that are
described below. This feature may then be used to characterize the translations:
the greater the number of exegetical elements found in a translation unit, the
freer it is considered. Conversely, the greater the number of fixed equivalents in a
translation unit, the more it is considered literal, and the smaller the number of
such equivalents, the freer it is considered.
Among the exegetical elements contained in the translations, it is possible to
distinguish between linguistic exegesis that follows the text closely, and other
forms of exegesis that move the translation away from a literal understanding.
Some exegetical elements form a necessary part of the translation process, while
others infuse the text with elements of the taste, understanding, and personality
of the translator, sometimes to such an extent that the plain meaning of the text is
completely obscured. For example, some translators allowed themselves the
freedom to include allusions to other Bible verses or to insert their own
reflections into the translation. However, even if according to our understanding
the translators seem to have strayed far from the simple meaning of the verses,
they were, nevertheless, reflecting what they considered to be their message. The
three types of non-linguistic exegesis that are found in most of the translations
are exemplified below.
b. Contextual Exegesis
A translator sometimes explains a detail based on another detail in the

context or he may add or omit a detail. For example,
Num 20:19
Exod 32:26
()'N p1)
0::: 0
(It is but a small) matter, (on my feet I would pass

through.)
a bad thing (i.e., a matter of offense)= 0::: Ps-J N
'?N ';,'?
Who is on the LORD's side? To me!

(= o:::o Ps-J N s
Who is on the LORD's side? Come to me!
TLS rrpos KupLOv tTw rrp6s
NRSV
D)
Stylistic shortening is exemplified in the next example.

Josh 4:14
m+
nN
mN ,N.,,,
and they revered him as they had revered Moses.

KaL E<j>opouvTo a{nov waTTE p Mwuaf)V
and they revered him like Moses.
The linguistic exegesis mentioned in a describes the determining of

equivalents on the basis of linguistic-semantic identification alone. As
with linguistic exegesis, contextual exegesis also has linguistic aspects,
but often the overall meaning of the context is more influential for
determining equivalents. For example,
Exod 6:12
C'n::ltv '?1ll of uncircumcised lips

aA.oyos
lacking verbal fluency
120
Exod 6:30
Exod 18:7
c'n:ltv ',ill
(\j
taxvo<j>wvo<;
m+
C1',tv', 1i1lli',
having a speech impediment

1',NiD'1
and they asked after each other's welfare

Kat
and they greeted each other
1" i1'i1n) ,,,
Deut 23:13
(You shall have) an area (outside the camp.)

([0
(d. ([Ps-J N)
an arranged place I a set area

Isa 9:13
m
(\j
i15:1::l
f1Eyav KGLflLKpov (cf. ([J)
palm branch and reed

great and small
The translator of this verse forwent the exact rendering of the Hebrew words and
translated them according to their context.
The translation also contains other forms of exegesis, such as

historical, geographical, and cultural exegesis. Beyond the types of
exegesis described above, various translations also reflect the following
exegetical tendencies:
c. Theological Exegesis
Almost any translation option in an ancient or modem translation of the
Hebrew Bible is potentially a carrier of theologically motivated exegesis,
because of the central place of the Bible in the religions based on it. It is,
in fact, difficult to imagine a biblical translation without theological
exegesis. Among the ancient translations, the Palestinian Targumim+
probably provide the most data on embedded theological exegesis. An
analysis of this exegesis provides many helpful insights for the textcritical examination of the ancient translations.
Theological exegesis relates to the description of God and His acts, the
Messiah, Zion, the exile, as well as various ideas, such as that of repentance. Such
exegesis may be expressed through theologically motivated choices of translation
equivalents, 203 in changes in words and verses (either large or small) or in
expansions or omissions of ideas considered offensive.
Hebrew scribes and translators inserted similar changes in their manuscripts,
and it is often hard to distinguish between these two options. Knowledge of
203 For example, the translator(s) of the Latter Prophets (except for Isaiah) who rendered
i11i1' (literally: the LORD of armies) consistently with KUpLoS"
the phrase
rravToKpchwp (the LORD omnipotent) must have had a certain view of the nature of the
Hebrew phrase. For him (them),
included not just a body of "angels" or "armies,"
but it encompassed everything. Thus, when choosing this rendering, the translator(s)
exegetically rendered the Hebrew word when opting for a term that is also known from
the world of the Greek gods, some of whom were described as rravToKpciTwp ...... E. Tov,
"Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Sept1,1agint," in id., Greek-Hebri?W
Bible, 257-69 (263)
121
translation technique is our main guide in order to decide whether a translational

deviation from m derived from the translator or his Hebrew Vorlage+.
The theological world of the free translator of
is clearly recognizable
"salvation," referring
in his exegesis. Thus, the idea that God brings
particularly to salvation from the exile, has often been introduced in 11) in places
where it is not found in m. For example,
Isa 38:11
C"ni1 fil:(:::l i1" i1" i11:(i1:( 1:(', ( = s D)

I shall never see the LORD, the LORD in
the land of the
living.
ouKETL fl
Tou 8Eou ETTL Tfjs yfjs (d.
\'8w To
<r:I)
I shall never see the salvation of God on earth
Isa 40:5
nn iiD:::l '?:;, 11:(i1 (i11i1" 11:::l::l i1'?m) ( = 5 D)
(And the glory of the LORD shall appear) and all flesh
shall see <it> together.
Kal otj;ETaL TTQ(JQ
TO
TOU 8EOU
... and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

As a rule, the translators did not flinch from rendering verses or words
literally that may be considered to be anthropomorphic or anthropopathic, that
is, portraying God's appearance and feelings according to those of human beings.
However, sometimes they avoided literal renderings. For example,
Isa 6:1
'?::l"i1i1 nl:( 0"1:('?1.:1 1'?1tv1
cr:J
1:('?::l"i1
11)
(... and the Temple was filled with) the brightness of

His glory.
TfjS"
a{JTou ... of His glory204
... and the skirts of His robe filled the Temple.
Cf.
i1"iP" 1"T61
The Targumim of the Torah vary in their renderings of the divine names,
especially ,,,, 1:(i1.:1"1.:1, "the word of the LORD"; e.g. cr: 0 to Gen 28:20 (m C"i1'?1:() and
"1"1 l:(ip", "the glory of the LORD," e.g. in cr: 0 to Gen 28:13 (m i11i1").
See further in 11):
Exod 4:24
'i1 1i1tvm"1 (r= 5 o)
the
LORD
met him
GUTtfJ ayyEAOS" KUplOU (= ([0, Ps-J)
the angel of the LORD met him

Exod 19:3
m+
C'i1'?1:(i1 '?1:( i1'?l' i1iD1.:11
\1)
KQL Mwucrfjs
and Moses went up to
God
Els TO opos TOU 8EOU
and Moses went up to the mountain of God

Exod 24:10
m+
'?l:(iiV' "i1'?1:( nl:( 11:(i'1
and they saw the God of Israel

Kal El8ov Tov Torrov ou
o8EOS" Tou lcrpaT]A.
and they saw the place where the God of Israel stood
204 For the prominence of
52:14; 53:2.
(against Ill), see Exod 15:1-18; lsa 11:3; 30:27; 33:17; 40:6;
122
Num 12:8
1::1
'iT
il::l
... and he beholds the likeness of the
Kal.
Kup(ou
il::l)
LORD
EloEv
... and he beholds the glory of the

(d. cr: 0 and Ps 17:15 ).
LORD
d. Midrashic Tendencies
The ancient translations of several biblical books include midrashic elements
similar or identical to midrashic exegesis known from rabbinic literature. By
definition midrashic elements add a dimension to the plain meaning of Scripture.
Such exegesis is particularly frequent in the Targumim, but it is also found in
and D.
3. Representation of Hebrew Constructions in the Translation

Each language has its own internal logic, which complicates the translation
activity when categories of the source language do not exist in the target
language. In such cases, the translators exhibited their inventiveness within the
framework of what is usually named translation technique. Thus, the translators
had to locate ways of representing the intricacies of the Hebrew verbal system,
the Hebrew construct formation, conjunctions, and particles as well as
constructions unique to Hebrew, such as 1::1 ...
(literally: "which I that ... upon
which"). In these instances, the translators sometimes deviated from the exact
wording of their source in accordance with the needs of the target language,
while in other cases they slavishly reproduced the Hebrew, thus creating
unnatural elements (Hebraisms+) in the target language ..... Soisalon-Soininen*,
Aejmelaeus*
4. Inner-Translational Phenomena
The ancient translations reflect many types of inner-translational corruptions,
such as the omission or addition of a letter or a word, a doublet+, or the
interchange of similar letters in the script of the translation. Likewise, many
scribes, while copying the manuscripts of the translations, added short
explanatory notes (glosses and interpolations), and even adapted the oftenunnatural translation language to the more elegant style of the target language.
For examples pertaining to, see Tov, TCU, 88-95.
5. Reconstruction of the Hebrew Source of the Translations
Almost all translations reflect a certain amount of content exegesis and

inner-translational corruption, which is taken into consideration when
the differences between m and the Hebrew source of an ancient
translation are being analyzed.
If the deviation of a translation from m did not result from such exegesis or
inner-translational corruption, often the translation is based on a different
("variant") Hebrew reading.
123
Practical rules for the reconstruction of such readings cannot be formulated,

but important aspects have been analyzed in methodological discussions by
Margolis*, Ziegler*, Cashen-Gottstein*, Barr*, Tov* 1997, and Aejmelaeus*,
mainly in relation to (\;. Reconstruction is based on the assumption that elements
of the Hebrew Vorlage+ of the translation can be determined with greater ease the
more consistently the translator used fixed equivalents for individual words and
grammatical categories. If a certain translation unit is rendered freely, it is much
more difficult and often impossible to reconstruct the elements of its Hebrew
source.
Details in the Hebrew Vorlage+ of the translations can be reconstructed
primarily on the basis of intuition in conjunction with the use of research tools,
especially bilingual concordances to the translations that record all the
equivalents of the translation and m. For example:
Deut 31:1
m+
(\j
i:::l1"1
l'?"1 And Moses went and spoke
Kal. auvETEAEaEv Mwuafls- A.aA.wv
And Moses finished speaking.
1:::11"
'?:J1 (= lQDeutb and Deut 32:45 m+,
(\j)
An analysis of (\j shows that the verb auvTEAEw, "to finish," usually reflects the
root i1".,:::;, "to finish." -+ CATSS+; Hatch-Redpath, Concordance. Since the deviation in (\j cannot be explained in terms of exegesis on the part of the translator,
it would appear that (\j reflects a variant reading '?:J1, "and he finished." Either
l'?"1, "and he went," of m or '?:J1 of the Hebrew Vorlage of (\j developed by way of
metathesis+ of the last two letters. In this case, the reconstructed reading appears
in a Hebrew source, viz., lQDeutb 13 ii 4 and in Deut 32:45 m+ i:::l1"
'?:J1,
"And Moses finished speaking." 205 A reverse interchange is known from Jash
19:49,51 ffi+
Kal. ETTOpEU8T]aav (= 1:J'?1).
When a rendering in one of the ancient translations is problematic

when compared with its equivalent in m, various factors are taken into
consideration.
Translation equivalents: an examination of equivalents elsewhere in the
translation, after aprior analysis of possible exegetical elements in that version.
Intuition: reliance on intuition wnen a reconstruction is suggested.
Textual probability: the choice of retroverted readings that appear reasonable
with regard to what is known about the textual transmission of m, involving, e.g.
known interchanges of letters, such as 1 /1 and 1/".
Linguistic plausibility: the degree of the conformity of the reconstructed
reading to the grammar, vocabulary, and style of biblical Hebrew, especially in
the book in which the reconstructed reading is found.
205 According to !TI+, I!J, Moses "finished speaking" in Deut 32:45, while according to
1QDeutb and I!J, he had already finished speaking in 31:1. Seemingly, this unusual
situation speaks against the originality of that reading in 31:1, but the problem
encountered here is at the level of literary and not textual criticism. The literary history
of these chapters is rather complicated, and in the present formulation Moses twice
should not deter us from
"finished" a final speech (31:1; 32:45). The literary
accepting the originality of the readings of 1QDeut and I!) in 31:1. The fact that the
"going" of Moses, as in !ll+ "and Moses went," is unclear in the context speaks against
the originality of that reading.
124
Possible support from other Hebre-w texts ...... below
As a rule, the criteria for the reconstruction of Hebrew readings are

considered subjective. However, some types of retroversions are
relatively objective.
If the reading reconstructed from an ancient version was developed by way
of corruption from the reading of m or vice versa--especially in the case of
interchanges+ of letters-and if the Hebrew words are remote from one another
with regard to content, the reconstruction is plausible. For example,
Jer 23:9
m+
\B
,,:;,iD (= 1i:Di;i, "drunk") ..... Table 25

aUVTETpl IJ.IJ.EVO<; ("broken")
,,:liD (=
The variant itself may have been influenced by ;:::l'? 1:::liDJ, "my heart is broken," at
the beginning of the verse. The distance in subject matter between the two
Hebrew words compared with the graphic similarity of the beth and kaph leads to
the assumption that the translator indeed read ,,:liD.
The degree of certainty in the reconstruction of proper nouns is greater than
in the reconstruction of common nouns, since no exegetical factors are involved
in the transliteration+ of proper nouns; e.g. the Rodanim I Dodanim interchange
described on pp. 16-17.
Some reconstructions are supported by other (usually: extra-Masoretic)
Hebrew evidence. For example,
Isa 36:11
m+
Cllil
the people
(B
TWV av9pwrrwv
the men
= 1Qisaa
the men
The retroversion of \B is supported by the identical reading in 1Qisaa.
1 Sam 2:20
m
\B
ctP.:
he will give
he will repay
he will repay
arroTE(am
= 5
=!)
4QSama
The retroversion of \B is supported by the identical reading in 4QSama.

The discovery of the Qumran scrolls provided much support for the
procedure of retroverting ...... p. 110. Before these discoveries, many readings had
been retroverted from the versions, 2 06 but only when such readings turned up in
Qumran Hebrew manuscripts could there be greater certainty regarding the
correctness of the procedure, although doubts remain in matters of detail. In the
following example, the long addition tom in \B-2 Sam 8:7 appears also in 4QSama
and can therefore be retroverted easily.
KQL
aim'z :LouaaKL 11
IEpovaaATJil EV
aLAE us
At YVTTTOV EV T!ji
atJTOV ELS'
viov :LoA.oiJ.WVTos
And Sousakeim, king of Egypt, took them when he went up to

Jerusalem in the days of Roboam son of Solomon.
206 1n fact, often pluses in may be retroverted with the aid of similar pluses in 1ll (e.g.
Exod 1:22; 2:21; Num 3:12), but this source has not been used to enhance trust in 's
retroversions, since the agreements between and 1.U are often misleading.
125

4QSama o::J [c',iD1]'1 ',1( 1n1';b[:::l ci:;,:o 1',o ptv1iD in!( np ]',
1::::! Cl':::lni
(-+ OJO XVII)
]c'
Some examples follow of deviations from m in the ancient versions

that are reconstructed into Hebrew.
Table 25
Variant Readings Reconstructed from the Ancient Versions

Exod 1:12
1:;,:)?'1 (= 5)
And they felt a loathing for the Israelites
dJ
Kat
Ia paT].\
([o, Ps-J
ot Ai. yurrnoL arro Twv utwv
And the Egyptians felt a loathing for the Israelites.

',l(iiD'
c1p
10 'l(i:;,:o'? npl71
1:;,:)?'1 (thus apparently also
',l(iiD'
2QExoda according to letter count)

Isa 24:3
m+
i:::l1 'i1
'::l
for the LORD spoke

To yap
Kup[ou EAclATJGE
for the mouth of the LORD spoke

i:::l1 ';,
Jer 23:9
!H+
1"
'::l
i:::l)::l1 ii:DiP iD'I(::l n--;,
I was like a drunken man, and like a man

overcome by wine.
WS'
av6pwTTOS'
GUVTETpq.q.tEVOS' Kat WS'

GTTO OLVOU
I was like a broken man, and like a man overcome

by wine.
1"
Ps 104:17
m+
i:::l)::l1
i'tl;'l':;;l
iD'I(::l n"i1
;,,on
The st<?rk has her home in the junipers.

(103:17)
Tou EpwoLOu
oi.K[a
mhwv
The house of the stork leads them.

i'tl;'l':;;l
i11'0n (this orthography is also known
from the QSP+)
cf. Mic 2:13 CiDI(i:::l 'i11-o oE: KUpLos-
mhwv
... and the LORD shall lead them.

For examples of additional reconstructions, see Table 23 and pp. 227-62.
In the reconstruction of translational deviations into Hebrew there remains
constant uncertainty whether they derived from a different Hebrew reading or
from some other factor, such as content exegesis. Moreover, even if the
assumption of a different Hebrew reading seems well founded, it is possible that
the reading itself actually never existed, since the translator (1) may have misread
the source or (2) may have interpreted it etymologically (-+ Tov*, TCU, 162-80
and Tov* 2008):
126
Possibility (1): A possible misreading may be found in 113 in 1 Sam 21:8; 22:9,
18. This version wrongly calls Doeg-always an Edomite in m and the other
texts-a Syrian, 6 I:upos-, as against,
"the Edomite" in m. It is nevertheless
impossible to determine whether the source of 113 actually read 'OiNi1, "the
Aramean," or whether the translator mistakenly read 'OiNi1 for o1Ni1. The
difference between the two readings is often no more than a dot of ink. In either
case, most scholars will say that 113 reflects a reading 'OiNi1, even though this
reading may not have existed in the Hebrew scroll from which 113 was translated.
Thus, the concept of a reconstructed reading must necessarily remain imprecise.
As for possibility (2), a translator's etymological exegesis does not involve the
recognition of variants underlying the translation. Translators often turned to
etymology in their attempt to understand their Hebrew Vorlage+ ..... 2a, and
when doing so they often played, as it were, with the letters of the Hebrew. For
example, the frequent translation in 113 of 1-!:'iO '-,;,N ("tent of meeting") on the basis
aK1lv11 Tou llapTUp[ou ("tent of witness") is based on the last
of 1-!:' ("witness")
two consonants of 1-!:'iO, although other verses possibly echoed in the translators'
ears. 207
Consequently, this and many other instances do not point to a different
Vorlage+ of 113, but other cases are more doubtful. Consider the following case.
Exod 3:18
1J''-,ll i11pJ t:l"1:::llli1 ;,'-,N i11i1'
113
The LORD God of the Hebrews has encountered us

6 8Eoc; Twv'
rrpoaKE KAT]TaL
( = cr: 0 Ps-J S D)
The God of the Hebrews has called us.
It may be suggested that the translators 113 cr: 0 Ps-J S D derived their rendering from
a Hebrew text identical to m by way of an etymological equation of i11pJ =
At the same time, the translators could have known an actual variant
tu and in the parallel verse 5:3 m.
as in
The reconstruction of readings in the Hebrew Vorlage+ of the ancient

translations pertains to all the elements of the text found before the translator,
that is, additions, omissions, differences in letters or words, and differences in
sequence. However, it also includes elements that are not expressed in the
manuscripts, but which form an integral part of the exegetical tradition
accompanying the biblical text, that is, the reading of the words (vocalization+ in
m ..... pp. 39-47) and the syntactical relationship between words (expressed as the
combination or separation of words, sometimes resulting in a different verse
division+).
The reconstruction process is necessarily limited to words that can be
reconstructed with some degree of probability. Besides these, there are more than
a few differences between m and the translations concerning which one cannot
easily decide whether they reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage+ or translational
changes. In many cases, the analysis of the translation technique and the
translator's exegesis provides insufficient information in order to determine
whether deviations in certain grammatical categories derived from the translator
or from his Hebrew Vorlage. Thus one often gropes in the dark when
207 Both i"!l' and i"1!l are used in connection with the "tent of meeting." ..... Exod 30:36. See
further n1i!lii ("mK) in Exod 30:36; Num 9:15, 17:22, 18:2.
127
encountering differences in number (singular I plural), the tenses of the verb,

pronominal suffixes, prepositions, the article, etc. -+ Tov, TCU, 154-62
Since there is disagreement among scholars concerning the reconstruction of
the elements of the Hebrew Vorlage+ of the ancient translations, many of the
deviations from m in the translations that have been reconstructed by some
scholars as variant Hebrew readings have been described by others as innertranslational differences. Moreover, in certain cases where a deviation is
recognized as reflecting a variant reading, the possible reconstructions appear to
be endless. Many such disagreements are recorded in the critical editions+ of
Hebrew Scripture. 208
Beyond these disagreements, the final result of the analysis of the translation
technique of the several translations and the reconstruction procedure is the
recognition of a variant or series of variants. These variants are analyzed as part
of the text-critical and exegetical study of the Scripture books. -+ ch. 4, 6, 7. Such
variants are the focus of the ensuing analysis of the individual translations.
B.
Evidence
The following ancient translations are relevant to textual criticism in

different degrees:
1. Septuagint(, Greek)
2. Revisions of the Septuagint (Greek)
3. Targumim (<!:, Aramaic)
4. Peshitta (5, Syriac)
5. Vulgate (D, Latin)
6. Translation of Saadia (Arabic)
Other introductions to textual criticism also discuss secondary translations
("daughter translations") made from
into the following languages: Latin (the
Vetus Latina), Syriac (Syro-Palestinian translations), Armenian, Coptic (Sahidic,
Bohairic, Akhmimic), Georgian, Old Slavonic, Ethiopic, Gothic, and Arabic. Only
one of these versions, Vetus Latina-+. pp. 133-4, has any bearing on the Hebrew
text of the Bible through its Greek source that is not extant. All the other
secondary translations have relevance mainly for the transmission
1. Septuagint()
Brock, Bibliography; Dogniez, Bibliography.
Barthelemy, Devanciers (1963); E. Bickerman, "Some Notes on the Transmission of the
Septuagint," in A. Marx Jubilee Volume (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950) 14978 = id., Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part One (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 137-66; Bogaert,
"Septante"; S.P. Brock, "The Phenomenon of the Septuagint: The Witness of Tradition,"
OTS 17 (1972) 11-36; Dorival-Hari-Munnich, Septante; N. Fernandez Marcos, Septuaginta.
La Biblia griega de jud(os y cristianos (Biblioteca de Estudios Biblicos Minor 12; Salamanca:
208 E.g. M. Rosel, "Salomo und die Sonne. Zur Rekonstuktion des Tempelweihspruchs 1
Reg 8,12f," ZAW 121 (2009) 402-17 discusses six different reconstructions of the Vorlage
of II) in these verses.
128
Sigueme, 2008); M. Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem
of Its Canon (Edinburgh/New York: T & T Clark, 2002); Jellicoe, SMS; M. Karrer & W.
Kraus, "Umfang und Text der Septuaginta: Erwagungen nach dem Abschluss der
deutschen Obersetzung," in Karrer-Kraus, Septuaginta, 8-63; J. Lust, "Septuagint and
Canon," in The Biblical Canons, 39-55; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the
Translation Technique of the Septuagint (ConBOT 30; Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990); id.,
Essays; I.L. Seeligmann, "Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research,"
Textus 15 (1990) 169-232 <previously published in Dutch in 1940>; Swete, Introduction; E.
Tov, "The Septuagint," in Mulder, Mikra (1988) 161-88; id., TCU (1997); id., "The Greek
Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert," in HB, GB, and Qumran (2008) 339-64; id.,
"Coincidental Textual Nature" (2010a); id., "Post-Pentateuchal" (2010b); id., "The
Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity," in The Septuagint and Christian Origins-Die
Septuaginta und das friihe Christen tum (ed. T.S. Caulley & H. Lichtenberger; Tiibingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011) 3-25; G. Veltri, Eine Tara fiir den Konig Talmai: Untersuchungen zum
iibersetzungsverstiindnis in der jiidisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ 41;
Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994).
toofs: The edition of Rahlfs, Septuaginta (without variants) is available in

Accordance, Bib/eWorks, Logos, SESB, and many additional programs. The differences
between \1'l and m (as well as many features in translation technique and other areas) are
indicated in the CATSS module in Accordance, BibleWorks, Logos, and SESB. Resident
morphological analyses+ allow for a wide range of comparative searches and concordances,
the latter in Accordance only.- http: //www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
is a Jewish209 translation that was prepared in Alexandria, Palestine,

and possibly elsewhere. The Hebrew source
differed much from the
other textual witnesses (m+ and many of the Qumran texts), and this fact
is the main ancient
accounts for its great significance in biblical
witness that occasionally reflects compositional stages of the Scripture
books different from the ones included in m+. - h and ch. 7. Moreover,
is important as a reflection of early biblical exegesis, Jewish-Greek
culture, and the Greek language. Finally, this translation is also of major
importance for understanding early Christianity since much of the
vocabulary and some religious ideas of the NT are based on it. - Tov*
2011. The analysis below focuses on the text-critical importance of.
a. Name and Nature
The name of
(LXX) reflects the tradition that seventy-two elders
translated the Torah into Greek (thus Sof 1.7 and parallels and the Epistle
of Aristeas, an early Jewish composition describing the origin of ). In
the first centuries CE this tradition was expanded to include all the
209The Jewish character of the Torah translation is well established, while that of the postPentateuchal books is not, although this assumption is almost certainly correct. There
probably were no Gentiles in Egypt or elsewhere who would have had the skills to
make such a trans-cultural translation, or would have had an incentive to do so.
liB: The Ancient Translations- The Evidence
129
translated biblical books, 21 0 and finally it encompassed all of JewishGreek scriptures translated into Greek as well as several compositions
originally written in Greek. The translation of the Torah may reflect an
official translation, as narrated in the Epistle of Aristeas and Jewish
sources. -+ Veltri*. However, it was not created by seventy-two
individuals, as narrated in these sources, but rather by five different
translators.2 11 Most of the post-Pentateuchal books were translated by
different individuals, while some translators rendered more than one
book ...... Tov* 2010b
The collective name Septuagint(a) now denotes both the original
translation of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture into Greek and the collection of
sacred Greek writings in their present, canonical, form. Neither use is
precise, since the name Septuaginta is not suitable for a collection that
contains, in addition to the original translation of some books, late
revisions of original translations, as well as compositions written in
Greek. Accordingly, scholars usually distinguish between the collection
of sacred Greek writings named the "Septuagint" and the reconstructed
original translation, called the Old Greek (OG) translation. When it is
necessary to stress the diverse nature of the collection of books included
in 113, its name is often placed in quotation marks ("113").
b. Scope
"113" contains two types of books:
(a) The Greek translation of the twenty-four canonical Hebrew-Aramaic

books. These books contribute significantly to biblical studies, in particular to the
understanding of the textual transmission and exegesis of the Scripture books.
(b) Books not included in the Hebrew Scripture collection and subsequently
named Apocrypha (the "hidden" bo9ks) in Greek and sefarim bisoniyyim (the
outside books) in Hebrew. These books, considered deutero-canonical in the
Catholic Church, consist of two groups:
(1) A Greek translation of books, whose Hebrew or Aramaic source has been
lost or preserved only in part such as Ben Sira and Baruch 1:1-3:8;
(2) A few works composed in Greek, such as the Wisdom of Solomon.
c. Sequence of the Books

The twenty-four books of the Hebrew canon included in 113 together with
the so-called Apocrypha are arranged in a sequence different from that of
210 The first to do so was Justin Martyr, Apoiogy and Dialogue with Trypho, 68:7.-+ Hengel*,
25-36
211 Thus Hayeon Kim, Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew
University, Jerusalem, 2007 (summary: Bulletin off udaeo-Greek Studies 40 [2007]2-3).
130
Hebrew Scripture. Whereas the books of the Hebrew canon are arranged
in three sections (Torah, Prophets, Writings) probably reflecting their
acceptance
as
authoritative
books
at
different
stages,
the
Greek
arrangement reflects their literary genre. The Greek canon may be

conceived of as consisting of three, four, or five divisions:212
(1) Legal and historical books;
(2) Poetical and sapiential books;

(3) Prophetic books.
The Greek tradition that places the Prophets at the end of the Greek canon is
represented by codex B and many additional sources. According to Swete,
Introduction, 219 this tradition reflects "the great majority of authorities both
Eastern and Western." On the other hand, the three-section division of A, S, and
other sources reflects the division of Hebrew Scripture ...... p. 133. The sequence of
the majority Greek tradition is usually presented as reflecting a Christian
tradition. In this sequence, the Prophets, who according to Christian belief
foretell the coming of Jesus, are placed immediately before the NT books. The
minority tradition of A, S, and other sources possibly reflects either a late
approximation to the Hebrew tradition or the original Greek arrangement, since
Sis the earliest manuscript containing the complete Greek Scripture.
Within each section the Greek books are arranged in a sequence different from
that of the twenty-four books of Hebrew Scripture. Lust* 2003 reviewing earlier
views 213 shows that there is no evidence for the assumption that dJ reflects an
Alexandrian as opposed to a Palestinian canon. The differences between the
Hebrew and Greek canons pertain to the following areas:
Major/Minor Prophets. Since the Minor Prophets were joined as one unit,
there was no option to place some of them before the Major Prophets and others
after them. The Hebrew tradition places the Major Prophets first because of their
prominence, in defiance of chronological considerations that would have given
preference to Amos as the earliest of the writing prophets (Amos prophesied
shortly after 760 BCE). This tradition is also reflected in codex S of dJ and some,
chiefly Western, Church Fathers. However, in codices A, B, V and the majority of
the patristic lists the Minor Prophets precede the Major Prophets. The reason for
this internal sequence probably coincides with the placing of the Major Prophets
at the end of Greek Scripture, representing the wish to place them just before the
NT.
Internal sequence of the Minor Prophets.
Judges-Ruth. In the arrangement of l\J, Ruth follows Judges. This sequence is
secondary since the Hebrew and Greek canons contain the same Dtr+ block of
212The legal content of the Torah and the historical books represent different genres, but
together they may be conceived of as one large historical block including legal sections.
"The poetical and sapiential books likewise represent different genres, but they are
bound together by common poetical features.
213Especially Sundberg, Old Testament updated by id., "The Septuagint: The Bible of
Hellenistic Judaism," in The Canon Debate (ed. L. McDonald & ].A. Sanders; Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002) 68-90 ...... http://department.mol)m.edu I classics/Speel_Festschrift/ sundbergjr.htm
131
historical books from Deuteronomy until the end of 2 Kings, in which the
different literary genre of Ruth is out of place.
Additionally, the individual apocryphal books are integrated into the various
sections of 113 in accordance with their literary genre.
d. Original Form of \1>, Origin, and Date
In the wake of de Lagarde -+ p. 162, most scholars are now of the opinion
that all113 manuscripts derive from a single translation (for its reconstruction ..... j) that was repeatedly revised to the changing Hebrew text. An
alternative model, suggested by Kahle, assumes multiple translations,
without specifying the relation between these translations.-+ p. 172
Origin. Although often described as the "Alexandrian version of the Bible" .....
p. 156, n. 2, an Alexandrian origin of 113 is likely only for the Torah and some
additional books. There is now a growing understanding that several books were
produced in Palestine. These are, in sequence of probability: Esther, Qoheleth
(Aquila+ or kaige-Th+), sections of the "113" of Samuel-Kings, Canticles,
Lamentations, Ruth (all: kaige-Th+) . ..... Tov* 2010b. Each book was rendered by a
different individual, while a few clusters of books were prepared by a single
translator or group of translators. 214
Date. According to the generally accepted explanation of the testimony of the
Epistle of Aristeas, the Torah translation was carried out in Egypt in the
beginning of the third century BCE. This assumption is compatible with the early
date of several Greek papyrus and leather fragments of the Torah from Qumran
and Egypt, some of which date from the middle of the 2nd century until the 1st
century BCE. -+ pp. 132-3. The remaining Scripture books were translated at
different times. Some evidence for their dates is external, e.g. quotations from 113
in ancient sources, and some internal, e.g. reflections of historical situations or
events found in the translation.
The post-Pentateuchal books were translated after the translation of the
Torah, for most of these translations use its vocabulary, and several translations
also quote from the Greek Torah. Since the Prophets and several of the
Hagiographa were known in their Greek version to the grandson of Ben Sira at
the end of the 2nd century BCE, we may infer that most of them were translated in
the beginning of that century or somewhat earlier. There is only limited explicit
evidence concerning the dates of individual books: Chronicles is quoted by
Eupolemos in the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and Job by Pseudo-Aristeas in
the beginning of the 1st century BCE. -+ Swete*, 25-6. The translation of Isaiah
contains allusions to historical situations and events that point to the years 170150 BCE. 21 5
The corpus of "113" also contains revisions of original translations. -+

2. These revisions were made from the 1'1 century BCE onwards (parts of
214 See Tov* 2010b. One individual probably ;endered the OG of Jeremiah-Baruch, Ezekiel,
and the Minor Prophets, and another one produced the OG of 1-4 Kingdoms (SamuelKings).
215 Thus l.L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems
(Leiden: Brill, 1948) 76-94.
132
Samuel-Kings -+ p. 143) until the beginning of the 2"d century cE

(Qoheleth, if indeed translated by Aquila+, as assumed by Barthelemy*
1963, 21). Therefore, some four hundred years separate the translation of
the Torah from the youngest translation contained in"."
e. Evidence
is evidenced in many witnesses, some direct, such as early papyrus

fragments and manuscripts, and others indirect, such as the daughter
translations made from, and quotations by early authors.
a. Direct Witnesses216
Numerous sources contain , either completely or in part, varying in

date from the 2"d century BCE until the late Middle Ages:
(1) Early papyrus and leather texts, including both scrolls and codices dating
from the 2"d century BCE onwards, were discovered in the Judean Desert and
Egypt. The early date of these fragments, mainly of the Torah, helps us in gaining
insights into earlier periods, since the Hexapla either replaced older text traditions or contaminated manuscripts from the 3'd century CE onward.- pp. 145-6
4QLXXLev 3 and 4QpapLXXLevb (both 1st century BCE) are probably closer to
the OG than to the later uncials+, which had been revised towards m. 4QLXXLev 3
contains a slightly freer translation than that found in the uncial manuscrrts.
This scroll presumably reflects the OG, revised toward m in the uncials. 21 In
4QpapLXXLevb Lev 3:12, 4:27, law for Kuptos- (m ;"11;"1") probably reflects the
original, pre-Christian rendering of the Tetragrammaton, preceding Kuptos- of
.218 The translation vocabulary of both Qumran scrolls was not yet
standardized as it was in the later uncials+.219
2l6For an updated description of all the direct witnesses known until2004, see A. Rahlfs &
D. Fraenkel, Verzeicllllis der griechische11 Handschriften des A/ten Testaments, I, 1, Die
Oberliefenmg bis zum Vlll. Jahrhundert (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).
217 Thus Ulrich, DSS, 165-83; Tov* 2008; H.-J. Fabry, "Die griechischen Handschriften vom
Toten Meer," in Brennpunkt, 131-53. For different opinions, see the views quoted by
Tov* 2008 as well as J.B. Faulkenberry Miller, "4QLXXLev 3 and Prato-Septuagint
Studies: Reassessing Qumran Evidence for the Urtext Theory," in Qumran Studies: New
Approaches, New Questions (ed. M.Th. Davis & B.A. Strawn; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2007) 1-28; Lange, "They Confirmed," 56-9.
218on the other hand, A. Pietersma, "Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the
Original LXX," in De Septuaginta, 85-101 (98); J.W. Wevers, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and
the Septuagint," BIOSCS 38 (2005) 1-24, and M. Rosel, "The Reading and Translation of
the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch," JSOT 31 (2007)
. 411-28 consider KUpLOS" the original rendering. As a result, Wevers considers the
Qumran fragments revisions of the OG. - Tov* 2008, 356-7
219Thus, 4QLXXLev 3 Lev 26:12 presents the equivalent C.!i - E'Sv[os- referring to Israelites,
while the uncials have the usual equivalent ;\.aos-.
E'Svos- is usually reserved for
non-Israelites. In 4QpapLXXLevb Lev 4:7, 10, 18, Kaprrwats- equals :-r'?il, while the later
uncials contain the
rendering, o;\.oKauTwf.ta. In 4QLXXNum Num 3:40 apt8[J.Ew
equals 1p::1, while the later uncials contain the
rendering, t'maKETTTo[J.at.
133
The Chester Beatty /Scheide collection contains large sections of most biblical
books; especially significant are the papyri containing Daniel (numbered 967-8)
that serve as the sole witness of
in this book (except for the late Hexaplaric+
manuscripts). All other manuscripts contain the revision of kaige-Theodotion+
which had replaced the original translation in the corpus of the
(2) Uncial (uncialis) or majuscule (majusculus) manuscripts from the 4th to the
lOth century CE, written with "capital" letters, are the main source for our
knowledge
The three most important manuscripts containing all or almost
all books
are B, A, S, all of which also include the NT:
Codex B (Cod. Vat. Gr. 1209, or "Vaticanus" -+ pl. 20*), dating to the 4th
century, is the best complete manuscript, serving as the base text for several
editions. B is relatively free of corruptions and influences from the revisions
However, in Isaiah it is Hexaplaric+ and in Judges it contains another type of
revision.
Codex A (B.M. Royal MS 1 0 v-viii, or Alexandrinus"), dating to the sth
century, often adapted the text to similar verses and is also prone to
harmonizing. A is greatly influenced by the Hexaplaric tradition and in several
books represents it faithfully.
Codex S also
(B.M. Add. 43725, or "Sinaiticus"), dating to the middle
of the 4th century, is the oldest manuscript that combined
and NT. Codex S
usually agrees with B, when the two reflect the oc+ translation, but is also
influenced by the later revisions of
C. von Tischendorf brought this
manuscript to Russia in the middle of the 19th century from St. Catherine's
monastery in Sinai, from which it derives its name.
(3) Minuscule (minusculus) manuscripts, written with lowercase letters, from
the 9th to the 16th centuries are recorded in the Gottingen+ and Cambridge+
editions, while others are known from the edition of Holmes-Parsons.-+ f Even
though minuscules are relatively late, they often preserve ancient traditions, as,
known mainly from the four
for example, in the Lucianic+ tradition
minuscules denoted as b,o,c2,e2 in the Cambridge+ editions.
II
Indirect Witnesses: Daughter Translations of

In the first centuries CE, served as the official source of the Bible for the
Christian Church and therefore many translations were made from it in
accordance with the needs of the churches in the East and West. Several
of these translations are important for our knowledge of and its
revisions in early centuries. The testimony of the daughter versions is
adduced in the editions of Cambridge+ and Gottingen+.
Vetus Latina. Particularly important among these is the Vetus Latina,
"the Old Latin" <translation>.220 This translation preserved many
220 Edition: Vetus l.Jltina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt
und in Verbindung mit der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften herausgegeben von der
Erzabtei Beuron (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1949- ): Ge11esis (ed. B. Fischer, 1951-1954), Esaias
(ed. R. Gryson, 1987-1997), Ruth (ed. B. Gesche, 2005), Hester (ed. Haelewyck, 2003-
2008).
134
important Greek readings, sometimes as their only witness, in 1-4

Kingdoms often in conjunction with Luc 221 and 4QSama.--+ Ulrich, DSS,
233-74. VL, the first Christian translation of, translated from the Greek,
but some of its "Hebraizing" elements may have entered the Latin
translation directly from a Hebrew source, possibly during the oral
citation of the text in the synagogue service in North Africa, as surmised
by Quispel. 222 The textual evidence for VL is very complex, and its
various manuscripts may evidence several Greek sources of different
nature. If all these complications are taken into consideration, 22 3 one may
extract valuable data from the VL not only for the reconstruction of the
OG+, but also of its Hebrew Vorlage+, especially in Samuel and Kings.224
f. Editions
Almost all the uncial+ manuscripts of have been published in
diplomatic+ editions with or without an accompanying critical
apparatus+. The two major diplomatic editions are:
R. Holmes & J. Parsons, Vetus Testamentum graecum cum variis lectionibus,
vols. I-V (Oxford: Clarendon, 1798-1827). This edition records variants from 164
manuscripts, the daughter translations of
and early printed editions and is
valuable for the few books not covered by the Gi:ittingen and Cambridge editions.
A.E. Brooke, N. McLean, & H.St.J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek
According to the Text of Codex Vatican us (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1906-1940), generally known as "the Cambridge Septuagint." This series contains
the books Genesis-Nehemiah, as well as Esther, Judith, and Tobit in four
volumes, according to codex B, and where that manuscript is lacking, it has been
supplemented by either MS A or S. Together with the editions of the Gi:ittingen
series (see below), this edition is used by scholars for precise research.
22 1see J. Cantera, "Puntos de contacto de Ia 'Vetus Latina' con Ia recension de Luciano y

con otras recensiones griegas," Sefarad 25 (1965) 69-72.
222c. Quispel, "African Christianity before Minucius Felix and Tertullian," in Actus:
Studies in Honour of H.L.W. Nelson (ed. J. den Boeft & A.H.M. Kessels; Utrecht: Instituut
voor Klassieke Talen, 1982) 257-335 (260--65). These elements could also have derived
from Greek manuscripts now lost or from revisional activity on VL. ..... D.S. Blondheim,
Les parlers fudeo-Romans et Ia Vet us Latina (Paris: Champion, 1925) xlvii-xlviii
223see especially E. Schulz-Fltigel, "The Latin Old Testament Tradition," in "The History
and Significance of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible," in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament:
The History of Its Interpretation, Vol. I, ch. 2.1 (ed. M. Saeb0; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1996) 642-62.
224see the studies quoted on p. 308, n. 37; N. Fernandez Marcos, Scribes and Translators:
Septuagint and Old Latin in the Book of Kings (VTSup 54; Lei den/ New York/ Cologne:
Brill, 1994) 71-87; P.-M. Bogaert, "La Vetus Latina de Jeremie: texte tres court, temoin de
Ia plus ancienne Septante et d'une forme plus anciennes de l'hebreu Oeremiah 39 et
52)," in Schenker, Earliest Text (2003) 51--82; Hugo, "Le grec ancien" (2006). For an
example, see 2 Sam 23:8 inch. 4, Table 7 (p. 248).
135
Critical or eclectic+ editions present the reconstructed "original" text together

with a critical apparatus+.
o The Gottingen Septuagint series, named Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum
graecum auctoritate societatis litterarum gottingensis editum (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926- ), offers the most thorough critical editions
Each
volume contains a detailed critical apparatus in which the witnesses are divided
into groups and
so that readers can find their way through the maze
of manifold variants. 25 ..... plate 21 *
o Rahlfs and Rahlfs-Hanhart (1935, 2006) contain an abridged critical edition
according to the Gottingen system.
g. Auxiliary Tools
Hatch-Redpath, Concordance lists the "formal" Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents
for most of the words in the canonical books, Ben Sira, and 1 Esdras-for the
other Apocrypha the Greek words are listed without equivalents. T. Muraoka, A
Greek ... HebrewiAramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2010)
provides a revised summary of Hatch-Redpath as well as a Hebrew-Aramaic
reverse index ...... Tov, TCU, 90-99. See further Lust, Lexicon of the Septuagint.
Scholarly translations
Brock, Bibliography; Dogniez, Bibliography; NETS:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu I nets I; Septuaginta Deutsch: http://www.septuagintaforschung.del
e5itions ant> toof5: ..... ch. 10. For a description of CATss+, see Tov, GreekHebrew Bible, 31-51.
h. Hebrew Source
and Its Text-Critical Value
Bogaert, "Septante"; K.-R. Kim, Studies; F.H. Polak & G. Marquis, A Classified Index of the
Minuses of the Septuagint, Part I: Introduction; Part II: The Pentateuch (CATSS Basic Tools 4, 5;
Stellenbosch: Print24.com, 2002); E. Tov, "Large-Scale Differences"; E. Tov & B.G. Wright,
"Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units
in the LXX," in Tov, Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999) 219-37; see further the bibliographies inch. 7.
The study of the translation technique of

described in A2-4 was
developed in the 20th century wfth the aim of better assessing the textcritical value of that version. This research is incomplete, but in the
meantime, scholars allow themselves judgments on individual readings
and translation units based on studies of these units, supplemented by
external support from m. and the Qumran scrolls ...... pp. 122-7
225 For example, in Jeremiah, the witnesses of 113Luc (-+ !J are subdivided into a main
group (L) and a secondary group (1), and when a reading occurs in both it is recorded as
L'. Each book commences with an introduction containing a detailed evaluation of all
the textual witnesses of that book, a description of orthographic variants, and a
bibliography.
136
Reconstructions of elements in and segments of

are recorded in monographs, commentaries, critical editions+ of Hebrew Scripture, Polak-Marquis*,
and CATSS+. 226
Among the ancient translations, holds pride of place for textual critics since
it reflects a greater number of variants than all the other translations put together .
..... Tov, "Aramaic." These
variants are equally as important for text-critical
analysis as the readings found in Hebrew sources. Some scholars even claim that
readings are often
they are more important than these sources since the
superior to elements in m. However,
also reflects many secondary readings
(especially harmonizing variants in the Torah) ...... a below
Valuable variants reconstructed from 113 are recognized in all the

Scripture books, and in a great concentration in 1-2 Samuel because its m
version is often faulty.- p. 189
a. Survey of the Books in
113
Differing Significantly from
ffi+
Torah: 227 Only rarely does the reconstructed Vorlage+ of a book reflect textual
features that characterize a book as a whole. However, the Vorlage of
is
characterized by a large number of harmonizing pluses. These pluses are similar
to those of the .Ill-group, but are less well known since it is often said that this
feature is typical of the .Ill-group only.
reflects more harmonizations
than .Ill, often two or three times as many. 228 In Genesis and Deuteronomy,
textual harmonization characterizes d} more than any other feature, while a
smaller amount of harmonization is also visible in .Ill and 111+ ...... Tov, "Textual
and .Ill, but although
Harmonizations." Many harmonizations are shared by
they cover merely a portion of each text, the two must have derived from a
common origin. Harmonizing changes (usually: additions) were inserted by
22 6 Examples of retroversions are listed in Table 25 (p. 125) as well as in chapters 4C and 7.
In addition, Tov, TCU, 126-7 lists large-scale retroversions of complete chapters (e.g.
Genesis 1-3, 28, 29, 48; Jeremiah 27) and books (Ezekiel, Esther, 1 Esdras, Judith, Baruch,
1 Maccabees). Such retroversions were more in vogue around the turn of the 20'h
century than in recent years, now that the perils of large-scale retroversions are more
clearly recognized.
22 7 In general, the translators of II}-Torah represent their Hebrew source faithfully. -+ R.S.
Hendel, "On the Text-Critical Value of Septuagint Genesis: A Reply to Rosel," BlOSCS
32 (1999) 31-4
228For the data, see Hendel, Genesis 1-11; E. Tov, "Textual Harmonizations in the Stories of
the Patriarchs," forthcoming; G. Dorival, La Bible d'Alexandrie, 4: Les Nombres (Paris:
Cerf, 1994) 42-3; Tov, "Textual Harmonizations" (Deuteronomy); Kim*, Studies, 311 (the
complete Torah). See also M. Rosel, "Die Septuaginta und der Kult: lnterpretationen
und Aktualisierungen im Buche Numeri," in La double transmission du texte biblique:
Hommage il A. Schenker (ed. Y. Goldman & C. Uehlinger; OBO 179; Fribourg/Gottingen:
Editions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001) 25-40 (29-39). Most of the
harmonizations appear in the narrative sections, while some pertain to the phrasing of
the laws. In a very few cases, the content of a law is harmonized with a parallel one, as
in 11}-Deut 16:7 adapted to Exod 12:8. Against the traditional number of 1,900
agreements between II} and w. (-+ p. 157), Kim* counts merely 964 (of which 493 are
meaningful, and 328 are common harmonizations).
liB: Tile Ancient Translations- Tile Evidence
137
scribes at a late stage in the development of the Torah text, 229 while in other
cases
contains early elements. -+Table 26. The text of
thus reflects
opposing tendencies.
Genesis: Some editorial differences. l.ll and
differ systematically from !lt+ in
their presentation of the chronological data in the genealogies in Genesis 5, 8, and
11. Likewise, the text of m+ in Gen 31:46-52 appears in a different sequence in *,
which may well be earlier.-+ ch. 7B6, 8
Exodus: Editorial differences.
and !lt+ differ considerably in chapters 35--40,
with regard to the internal order and content ...... ch. 7B14
Numbers: Some editorial differences. The pluses, minuses, and sequence differences in
characterize an active textual I editorial involvement in small details .
..... ch. 7B20
Joshua: Transpositions, pluses, minuses, and theological differences in
These
features reflect an editorial stage in the development of the book differing from
that in m+ and sometimes earlier than it.-+ ch. 7B2
1-2 Samuel: Textual and editorial differences between !lt+,
4QSama, among
them editorial stages in
and 4QSama that differ from m+ and that are
sometimes earlier than it. This pertains to the Song of Hannah ..... ch. 7B4b and 1
Samuel 16-18
is significantly shorter than !lt+ ...... ch. 7B4a. Initially, the
Vorlage of reflected a text close to 4QSama ..... p. 109; subsequently, both texts
were developed in different directions.
1-2 Kings: Editorial differences. The differences between m+ and
Kings (3
Kingdoms) are among the largest in
Its editorial pluses, minuses, transpositions, and different chronology are usually later than !lt+ ...... ch. 7B7, 8. Systematic
differences between m+ and in 1-2 Kings concern their chronology ...... ch. 7B7
Isaiah: While
often deviates greatly from m+ because of its extensive
exegesis, its underlying Hebrew text did not differ much from !TI+ or 1Qisaa.230
Jeremiah: Editorial differences. Sequence differences and a much shorter text
reflect an editorial stage in the development of the book often earlier than !lt+.
These editorial differences are among the most prominent ones in
..... ch. 7B1
Ezekiel: Editorial differences. A slightly shorter version than !TI+, including a thin
layer of editorial differences.
is 4-5 percent shorter than !lt+ and in 7:3-9
the two texts reflect different editions.-+ ch. 7B3
Minor Prophets; The Vorlage+ of Hosea remains a topic of much contention. 232
Psalms: A few editorial differences.
differs from nt+ in a few editorial
details, namely the inclusion of Psalm 151 and the combining or separating of
some Psalms of m+. 233
229 The large amount of harmonization in (probably mainly in its Hebrew source) does
not support the assumption that the Torah was singled out for careful transmission.
Other data also militate against such an assumption. -+ p. 188
230 The minor agreements between and 1Qisaa do not substantially alter this picture. -+ J.
Ziegler, "Die Vorlage der Isaias-Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias-Rolle von
Qumran (1Qisa)," JBL 78 (1959) 34-59. See further Ulrich-Flint, DJD XXXII, 92-5.
231 In the Vorlage+ of
Bar 1:1-3:8 was included as an integral part of Jeremiah. Subsequently, an anonymous reviser reworked of chapters 29-52 as well as Bar 1:1-3:8
and probably also the first part of Jeremiah (now lost). See Tov, Jeremiah and Baruch.
232 According to A.A. Macintosh, Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997) lxxiv-lxxix
(lxxvi), the Vorlage of preceded that of m.
138
Job: Large-scale differences between and m + in this book were most likely
created by the free translator, 234 and do not pertain to its literary development.235
Proverbs: Editorial differences. Beyond the freedom of translation in
one discerns editorial features visible in its major differences in order (especially
inch. 24-31) and its lacking and added verses ...... ch. 7B5
Esther and Esthe,A-Text: Editorial differences. Both translations represent
rewritten compositions including large narrative expansions reworking a text
like m+. According to some scholars, the Vorlage+ of
preceded m ...... ch.
7B15
Daniel: Editorial differences.
translated a book that reworked a text like
m+, especially in ch. 4-6, while occasionally reflecting an earlier text. However,
according to some scholars, the Vorlage of
preceded min most cases ......
ch. 7B16
Ezra-Nehemiah: Some editorial differences. According to some scholars, the
literary shape of several chapters in 1 Esdras and
11 is older than
the parallel chapters in m-Ezra-Nehemiah and m-Chronicles ...... ch. 7B17
Chronicles: Some editorial differences. d) of 1-2 Chronicles differs significantly
from ffi+ in several details ...... ch 7B19
Table 26 summarizes this section while tentatively distinguishing between
presumably early and late elements in d).
Table 26
Textual and Literary Character of the \13 Books 236

Book in d)
1. Compositional
elements earlier
than !11+
Genesis
chronology;
2. Textual
3. Compositional 4. Textual eelements earlier elements later lements later
than m+
than !11+
than !11+
harm
233m 9, 10 = 113 9; m 114, 115 = 113 113; m 116 = 113 114 + 115; m 147 = 113 146 + 147. The
additional Psalm headings in 113 are usually not based on a Hebrew source, e.g. 33 (113:
32), 43 (113: 42), 71 (113: 70). Other Psalms remained without headings in 113 (e.g. 1, 2, 10) .
..... S. Gillmayr-Bucher, "The Psalm Headings: A Canonical Relecture of the Psalms" in
The Biblical Canons, 249-54; A. Pietersma, "David in the Greek Psalms," VT 30 (1980)
213-26 (214). On the other hand, A. van der Kooij, "On the Place of Origin of the Old
Greek of Psalms," VT 33 (1983) 67-74 considers these headings original, reflecting a
Palestinian tradition.
234This translation is one-sixth shorter than its counterpart in !TI+. The free character of 113
was analyzed in detail by]. Ziegler, "Der textkritische Wert der Septuaginta des Buches
Job," Sylloge, Gesammelte Aufsiitze zur Septuaginta (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1971) 9-28. For a judicious contextual analysis of the translator's major changes, see C. E.
Cox, "Elihu's Second Speech according to the Septuagint," in Studies in the Book of fob
. (ed. W.E. Aufrecht; SR 16; Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1985) 36-53.
235However, according to E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889)
215-45 (244-5), the source of 113 was much shorter than !TI+. According to this scholar,
after 113 was completed, m was expanded "by a poet whose imaginative power was at
least not inferior to that of the original writer" (p. 244).
236The following abbreviations are used: harm(onization), ed(itorial), rewr(itten)
comp(osition), elem(ents). Underlining: relation unclear.

Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
1-2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Minor
Prophets
Psalms
Proverbs
Ruth
Song
Lamentations
Qoheleth
Esther
Esther A-Text
Daniel
Ezra-Neh
1-2 Chr
Genesis 31
Exodus35-40
139
harm
harm
harm
harm
ed. elements
ed. elements
mistakes,
changed
theophoric
names inm+
rewr. comp.
chronology
ed. elements
ed. elements
few ed. elements
ed. elements
rewr. comp.
rewr. comp.
rewr. comp.
ed. elem. in 1
11
Esdras,
few ed. elements
Septuagintal Text Type?

The description of the character
in the various Scripture books in a
shows that they share only a limited number of features; it would
therefore not be appropriate to -speak about a Septuagintal text type,
Septuagintal features, or the like. However, Septuagintal features are
often mentioned in the literature, not on the basis of the evidence
but following general perceptions about the transmission of the biblical
text. -+ pp. 155-7
The translations included in
reflect different backgrounds. The Hebrew
Scripture books were translated into Greek at different times and in different
places (Alexandria, Palestine, and possibly elsewhere) ...... Tov*, 2010b. Further, no
common textual features of the Vorlagen+ of the Greek books are recognized
except for harmonizations in the Vorlage of the Greek Torah ...... p. 136
y. Evaluation of the Literary Evidence Reflected in
While the Hebrew copies used for

do not share any textual features
except for the mentioned harmonizations in the Torah, they share a
140
frequent divergence from !TI+, greater than the Qumran scrolls. m and \B
thus preserve the greatest amount of information on the development
stages of Hebrew Scripture. -+ Table 26 and Tov, "Large-Scale Differences"
When turning to the background of this situation, the assumption is
unavoidable that the Hebrew scrolls used for the Greek translation were
valuable, authoritative, and sometimes more ancient than m. Otherwise
they would not have contained so much material that scholars consider
relevant to the literary development of the biblical books.
The special character of the Vorlage+ of \B seems to be related either to
one of two factors or to a combination thereof: (1) the idiosyncratic
Hebrew scrolls used for the Greek translation were not embraced by the
circles that fostered m; and (2) the relatively early date of the translation
enterprise (275-150 BCE), involving still earlier Hebrew scrolls, explains
the existence of vestiges of earlier editorial stages of the biblical books in
\B (col. 1 in Table 26). 237 Only a combination of the two factors explains
that ancient texts, such as probably used for the Greek translation, still
circulated in the 3rd_2nd centuries BCE, when some of the proto-Masoretic
texts already existed, such as 4QJera, which is dated around 200 BCE. In
the reality of the third and second centuries BCE, it was probably not
unusual that scrolls other than the Masoretic tradition were chosen as the
base for the translation. This approach does not explain the cases in
which presumably reflects editorial stages subsequent to !H+ (col. 3 in
Table 26). In these cases, we have to appeal to the independence of
from the circles that embraced m (factor 1).
When ascribing the idiosyncratic character of the Hebrew scrolls
underlying \B to their early date (factor 2), we find some support for this
approach in the Qumran documents. A few early Qumran texts, similarly
deriving from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, reflect redactional differences
from !TI+. 238 Thus, according to a tentative working hypothesis, the early
date of the Hebrew scrolls used for the \B translations in some books and
of some of the Qumran scrolls may explain their attesting to early literary
traditions.
237There is no evidence for one of several alternative assumptions
was based on
Hebrew texts of a local Egyptian vintage. If the Jewish population of Egypt hardly knew
Hebrew, they would not have developed their own Hebrew version of the biblical text
(pace the assumption of local texts as developed by Albright and Cross- p. 173).
238Two Qumran scrolls contain the same early redactional stage
namely 4QJerb and
4QJerd (both: 200-150 BCE), while 4QJosha is relatively early (150-50 BCE). However,
another scroll possibly reflecting an early literary stage derives from a later period:
4QSama (50-25 BCE). - ch. 7B4b. The evidence for Qumran is thus not clear-cut, but
neither is it unequivocal
For only some of
books reflect editorial differences.
141
2. Revisions of the Septuagint
a. Background
A textual tradition is considered a revision (recension) of
if two
conditions are met:
and the revision share a common textual basis. This assumption is
based on the recognition of distinctive agreements in vocabulary
between the two texts that set them apart from the remainder of the If
such a common basis cannot be recognized, the two sources comprise
separate translations rather than a source and its revision.
The revision corrects
in a certain direction, generally towards a
more precise reflection of its Hebrew source.
b. Emergence of the Revisions
Various factors were instrumental in the creation of new Jewish Greek

versions, which included revisional elements, but probably the main
reason for their emergence was the first factor.
Differences between (\) and the current Hebrew text. The Greek-speaking Jews of
Palestine and Egypt required a Greek translation that would faithfully reflect the
proto-Masoretic text that was current from the 1st century BCE until the 2"d
century CE. Such a text was needed for their religious needs and, at a later stage,
also for the purpose of their polemics with the Christians.
Disregard of(\). The frequent use of (\) by the Christians caused the Jews to
dissociate themselves from it and to initiate new translations. 239 At the same
time, there is no proof that(\) was officially rejected.
/e<Dish exegesis. Possibly the need was felt for new Jewish-Greek versions to
reflect Jewish exegesis. However, (\) reflects more elements of Jewish exegesis
than the newer versions.
c. Nature of the Revisions

The revisions corrected
m different and sometimes opposing
directions. The desire to present Scripture more precisely and
consistently than the OG is common to most of them. The general
development is from small and unsystematic corrections in the early
revisions to extensive and consistent changes in the later ones.
Several of the revisions, like that of Aquila+, contained the entire Jewish
Scripture. Beyond Hebrew Scripture, kaige-Th+ included at least Baruch and
239 0. Sof. 1.7: "It happened once that five elders wrote the Torah for King Ptolemy in
Greek, and that day was as ominous for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was
made, since the Torah could not be accurately translated."
142
Th(eodotion)-Daniel included the expanded version of that Greek book, while

Origen and Lucian+ included most of the Apocrypha. However, in most cases it
is not known how many of the biblical books were covered by the revision.
Some of the revisions were widely circulated, as can be seen from (1) the
numerous quotations from kaige-Th; (2) the inclusion of the Th-Daniel revision in
the corpus of""; (3) the continued use of the revision of Aquila in synagogues
until the 61h century CE.-+ Justinian (527-565), Novella, 146
Because of its paramount importance for the textual history of, the Hexapla+
occupies a central position in the classification of the revisions, which are thus
subdivided into pre-Hexaplaric revisions, the Hexapla, and post-Hexaplaric
revisions.
d. Pre-Hexaplaric Revisions
The revisions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (= kaige- Th -+ a)
are referred to-in that order-in both ancient sources and modern
research as the "Three" (ol. y' and ol. A.' [= ol. A.oLTTOL = the others]).
Relatively numerous elements from these three revisions have been
preserved among the remnants of the Hexapla, in early papyrus
fragments, in marginal notes in Hexaplaric manuscripts of dJ, and in
quotations by the Church Fathers. The frequent agreement between the
"Three" (in Hexaplaric manuscripts, the Syro-Hexapla+, and Church
Fathers) probably derives from their being based on excerpts from the
Hexapla, possibly by Eusebius.
Editions. The fragments of the "Three" have been recorded in the Cambridge
and Gottingen+ editions as part of the Hexaplaric evidence. The edition of Field,
Hexapla is valuable in books not covered by these two series. Hatch-Redpath,
Concordance includes the vocabulary of the "Three" known up to 1900-without
Hebrew equivalents. Readings of Aquila are recorded in a bilingual index. 240
a. Kaige- Theodotion
Barthelemy, Devanciers; Bogaert, "Septante" (1993); P.J. Gentry, The Asterisked Material in the
Greek job (SBLSCS 38; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995); L. Greenspoon, "Recensions,
Revisions, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthelemy and Early Developments in the Greek
Traditions," Textus 15 (1990) 153-67; id., "The Kaige Recension: The Life, Death, and
Postmortem Existence of A Modern-and Ancient-Phenomenon," in Peters, XII Congress
(2006) 5-16; Hugo, "Le grec ancien" (2006); J.-H. Kim, Die hebriiischen und griechischen
Texiformen der Samuel- und Konigebiicher: Studien zur Textgeschichte ausgehend von 2Sam 15,119,9 (BZAW 394; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009); van der Kooij, Textzeugen, 127-50; R.A. Kraft,
"Septuagint, Earliest Greek Versions," IDBSup, 811-15; id., "Reassessing the Impact of
Barthelemy's Devanciers, Forty Years Later," BIOSCS 37 (2004) 1-28; T. McLay, The OG and
Th Version of Daniel (SBLSCS 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996); id., "Kaige and Septuagint
Research," Textus 19 (1998) 127-39; 0. Munnich, "La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe
kaige," VT 33 (1983) 75--89; Olofsson, Essays, 134-75; A. Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannte "!}"240]. Reider-N. Turner, An Index to Aquila (VTSup 12; Leiden: Brill, 1966).
JIB: Tile Ancient Translations- Tile Evidence
143
Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? (NAWG I, Phil.-hist. Kl.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966):
Kaige- Th(eodotion) is the modern name of an early revision of the OG, at

first identified in SI-:IevXII gr, the Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal
I-:Iever. This scroll contains an early revision of the OG named kaige by
Barthelemy* 1963. -+ plate 22*. A similar revision is reflected, among
others, in the following sources: several segments of
in SamuelKings (2 Sam 11:1 [10:1 ?]-1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Kgs 22:1-2 Kings), the B text of
of Judges, and the
of Ruth and Lamentations. Barthelemy* also
assigned to this group the sixth column (attributed to Theodotion) and
the Quinta or fifth, Greek column of the Hexapla.-+ n. 244. According to
Munnich* and Olofsson*, this revision was influenced by
In antiquity, this anonymous revision was associated with the figure of
Theodotion, probably from Ephesus, who apparently lived at the end of the 2nd
century CE. Hence the translational units, which are ascribed to Theodotion, also
belong to this group of revisions. Consequently, the revision as a whole is now
named kaige- Th, although its various attestations are not uniform in character
and accordingly different individuals may have been involved ...... Schmitt* and
McLay* 1996 on Daniel; Gentry* 1995 on Job; McLay* 1998 on kaige-Th as a whole.
McLay 1996 denies a connection between kaige and Th in Daniel and according to
Gentry* 1995, in Job "Th" is not kaige-Th, but the historical Theodotion. Accordingly, 8I-:IevXII gr and the mentioned segments of Samuel-Kings are central to
the assumption of the kaige-Th revision, while the status of the other segments is
less clear. The presumed early date of kaige-Th, the middle of the 1'1 century BCE,
eliminates the need for an assumed proto-Theodotionic translation. 241 For an
updated review of the literature on kaige-Th, see Kraft* 2004 and Hugo* 2006 and
for the criteria used in identifying its renderings, see Olofsson* 2009.
Barthelemy named the anonymous revision Ka( yE, kaige, because one of its
distinctive features is that I:D, "also," is usually translated with Ka( yE, "at least,"
apparently following the rabbinic hermeneutical rule that each gam in Scripture
refers not only to the word(s) occurring after it, but also to one additional word
(one of the 32 hermeneutical rules, mi'ddot, of R. Eliezer ben Yose ha-Gelili named
"inclusion and exclusion"). To what extent kaige-Th followed rabbinic exegesis in
other details as well (as claimed by Barthelemy*) remains a matter of debate.
-+Greenspoon*1990,2006
Text-critical value. The text of kaige-Th reflects m...... Tov*, "Aramaic"
Barthelemy, Devanciers (1963); L.L. Grabbe, "Aquila's Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,"
!JS 33 (1982) 527-36; K. Hyvarinen, Die Obersetzung von Aquila (ConBOT 10; Lund:
241 Theodotion's revision was quoted in sources that preceded the period of the historical
Theodotion by two hundred years or more. Therefore scholars assumed that these
quotations were cited from a previous translation ("proto-Theodotion") on which the
historical Theodotion was based. We now know that the assumed proto-Theodotion is
none other than kaige-Th tentatively ascribed to the middle of the 1' 1 century BCE.
144
LiberLaromedel-Gleerup, 1977); J. Labendz, "Aquila's Bible Translation in Late Antiquity:

Jewish and Christian Perspectives," HTR 102 (2009) 353-88.
Aquila, probably from Pontus, prepared his revision in approximately

125 CE. For some biblical books he issued two different editions of his
revision, but the relation between them cannot be easily assessed. The
translation system of Aquila is the most literal of the biblical translators,
creating a translation that is often not understandable without
knowledge of the Hebrew source text. His approach to Scripture,
acquired from his teacher R. Akiba, determined that every letter and
word in Scripture is meaningful. Aquila therefore made an attempt to
represent accurately every word, particle, and even morphological+
separately
constituent. For example, he translated the nota accusativi
with avv, "with," on the basis of the other meaning of me, namely "with"
In his linguistic approach toward translation, Aquila paid much
attention to the etymology of the Hebrew words, and this aspect, rather
than any presumed rabbinic exegesis, characterizes his version.
According to Friedmann and Silverstone, 242 "Aquila the proselyte" is
identical to "Onqelos the proselyte" mentioned in b. Meg. 3a and elsewhere as the
author of the Targum Onqelos+ of the Torah. Although the names Aquila, o'-,piJ,
and Onqelos, 01'-,pm(, are indeed closely related, there is no evidence that it was
one and the same person who translated the Torah into Aramaic and revised .
Both translations are exact, but the level of adherence to m of the Greek
translation is greater than that of the Aramaic one. Hyvarinen*, 88-9 notes the
closeness, not identity, between Aquila and the translator of Qoheleth.
Text-critical value. The text of Aquila reflects m.
y. Symmachus
Barthelemy, Devanciers (1963); id., "Qui est Symmaque?" CBQ 36 (1974) 451-65; J.R. Busto
Saiz, La traducci6n de Sfmaco en e/ libra de los Sa/mas (TECC 22; Madrid: CSIC, 1978); A.
Geiger, Gesammelte Ablumdhmgen (Warsaw: Tushiyah, 1910) 51-9; J. Gonzalez Luis, La
version de Sfmaco a los Profetas Mayores (Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Complutense;
Madrid, 1981); A. van der Kooij, "Symmachus, 'de vertaler der Joden'," NIT 42 (1988) 1-20;
A. Salvesen, Symmac/ws in the Pentateuch (]SS Monograph 15; Manchester: University of
Manchester, 1991 ).
Conflicting data have been transmitted concerning Symmachus'

biographical details and religious affiliation. His revision is usually dated
to the end of the 2"d century or beginning of the 3'd century CE. According
to Epiphanius, Symmachus was a Samaritan who had become a
proselyte, while Eusebius and Jerome+ state that he belonged to the
Jewish-Christian Ebionite sect. Geiger* and Salvesen*, 297 are of the
242M. Friedmann, Onkelos wzd Akylas (Vienna: lsrael.-theol. Lehranstalt, 1896); A.E.
Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1931).
145
opm10n that Symmachus was Jewish, while Barthelemy* 1974 even

identified him with Somchos,
a disciple of
R. Meir, mentioned in
b. 'Erub. 13b. Salvesen*, 296 suggests that Symmachus was active in

Caesarea.
Two diametrically opposed tendencies are visible in Symmachus' revision. On

the one hand he was very precise (like Aquila, he based his revision on kaige-Th),
while on the other hand, he very often translated ad sensum rather than
representing the Hebrew words with their stereotyped renderings.
Text-critical value. The text of Symmachus reflects m.
During the 20 1h century, additional early revisions were discovered in
new sources and identified in known manuscripts.2 43
e. Hexapla
S. Brock, "Origen's Aims as a Textual Critic of the Old Testament," in Studies in the
Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretation (ed. S. Jellicoe & H.M. Orlinsky; New York:
Ktav, 1974) 343-6; A. Grafton & M. Williams, Christianity and the Tra11sformatio11 of the Book:
Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, MA I London: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 2006); B. Johnson, Die hexaplarische Reze11sio11 des 1. Samuelbuches
der Septuaginta (Studia Theologica Lundensia 22; Lund: Gleerup, 1963); T.M. Law, "Origen's
Parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics, or Exegesis," JTS 59 (2008) 2-21; Salvesen,
Hexapla (1998); I. Soisalon-Soininen, Der Charakter der asterisiertm Zusiitze in der Septuagi11ta
(AASF B 114; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1959).
In the middle of the 3rd century CE, Origen arranged a comprehensive
edition of the Bible in six columns (hence its name: Hexapla, six-column
<edition>) that included the Hebrew text, its transliteration+ in Greek
characters, and four Greek translations. 244 Origen invested much effort
in the preparation of the fifth column, containing \B. This column
243 MSS A, F, M of Exodus-Deuteronomy;
Pap. Rylands Gk. 458 of Deuteronomy;
Pap. Chester Beatty /Scheide 967 of Ez.ekiel;
Pap. Antinoopolis 8 of Proverbs;
Pap. Oxy. 1007.
244 The first column contained the consonantal Hebrew text, the reading of which was
facilitated by the Greek transliteration+ in the second column. The literal translation in
the third column (Aquila) provided the meaning of the individual words and the fourth
column (Symmachus) supplied the meaning of the context as a whole. The fifth column,
an "annotated" version of the \\J of Origen's time, probably served as the basis for a
comparison of the Jewish Scriptures and those of the Christians. The nature of the
remaining columns has not been clarified. The sixth column ("9"') usually contains
kaige-Th, but in the Minor Prophets it contains a translation of an uncertain nature, and
in parts of Samuel-Kings it contains a text that is almost identical to the Lucianic
tradition. For certain books, there are aqditional columns called Quinta and Sexta, i.e.,
the fifth and sixth columns according to the Greek numbering of the columns. The
Quinta apparently contains kaige-Th, while the nature of the Sexta has not yet been
clarified. See further H.M. Orlinsky, "The Columnar Order of the Hexapla," JQR n.s. 27
(1936-1937) 137-49.
146
included a notation of the quantitative differences between 113 and the

Hebrew text: elements extant in Greek, but not in Hebrew, were denoted
with an obelos
while elements extant in Hebrew, but not in 113, which
were added in the fifth column from one of the other columns (mainly
from the sixth column, kaige-Th) were denoted with an asteriskos ().
The Hexapla was mainly intended for the internal requirements of the church
(thus Brock* based on Origen, Ep. ad Afr. 5), although other motives should not
be discarded, and probably Origen had more than one motive. 245 The content of
the Hexapla is known from a small number of fragments, quotations by Church
Fathers, the Syro-Hexapla+, and marginal notes in ll) manuscripts.
Editions. The remnants of the Hexapla are recorded in separate apparatuses
in the Cambridge+ and Gottingen+ editions of ll) as well as in separate editions.246
Text-critical value. In spite of internal differences, sometimes reflecting
different Hebrew readings, all columns of the Hexapla, except for the fifth (ll; ),
reflect m.
f. Post-Hexaplaric Revisions: Lucian

Barthelemy, Devanciers (1963); S.P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of 1
Samuel (Quaderni di Henoch 9; Torino: Silvio Zamorani, 1996); F.M. Cross, "The History of
the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert," HTR 57 (1964) 281-99;
N. Fernandez Marcos, "The Textual Context of the Hexapla: Lucianic Texts and Vetus
Latina," in Salvesen, Hexapla, 408-20; id. & J.R. Busto Saiz, El Texto Antioqueno de Ia Biblia
Griega, 1-lll, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Reyes, 1-2 Cr6nicas (TECC 50, 53, 60; Madrid: Instituto de
Filologfa, 1989, 1992, 1996); M.V. Spottorno, "Traces of a Non-Masoretic Text in the
Antiochene Revision," Sefarad 64 (2004) 409-22; B.A. Taylor, The Lucianic Manuscripts of 1
Reigns, vols. 1-2 (HSM 50-51; Atlanta, GA, 1992-1993); id., "The Lucianic Text and the MT
in 1 Reigns," in id., IX Congress (1997) 1-18; E. Tov, "Lucian and Proto-Lucian: Toward a
New Solution of the Problem," in id., Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999) 477-88.
The most important post-Hexaplaric revision is that of Lucian of Antioch,

who died in 312 CE. This revision, which was rediscovered in the 191h
century in some minuscule+ manuscripts (denoted b,o,c2,e 2 in the
Cambridge Septuagint+), is also known from Greek and Latin sources
antedating the time of the historical Lucian ..... Brock*. Some of them
antedate the historical Lucian by 100-350 years: Hebrew texts from
Qumran (in particular 4QSama- pp. 109, 147, possibly also 4QSamc), the
biblical quotations in Theodoret and Theophilus of Antioch- Fernandez
245 0rigen's words in Comm. in Matt., 15.14 seem to indicate that the project was, in our
parlance, philological. Law* 2008 suggested that Origen intended to provide an
exegetical tool.
246 Field, Hexapla; G. Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae (Vatican City: Vatican Library, 1958,
1965); A. Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchsti.icke (OBO 8; Freiburg/ Gottingen:
University Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975); id., Psalmen in den Hexapla: Erste
kritische und vollstiindige Ausgabe der Hexaplarischen Fragmente auf dem Rande der
Hmzdschrift Ottobonianus Graecus 398 zu den Ps 24-32 (Studi e Testi 295; Vatican City:
Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1982).
IIR: Tlze Ancient Translatimzs- The E<tidence
147
Marcos* 1989-1996, and the Old Latin - pp. 133-4. It was therefore
realized in the second half of the 20 1" century that ~Luc witnesses two
layers of evidence. On the one hand, the second layer of ~Luc, often based
on the "Three" or the fifth column of the Hexapla, frequently reflects m
faithfully. - Taylor* 1997. On the other hand, ~Luc also reflects important
early, pre-Lucianic, Hebrew readings (see below). These readings have
been preserved in ~J.uc because the base layer of Lucian's revision, the
Antiochene Greek text, probably constituted the OG text (itself based on
a Hebrew text often deviating from !H+). 247 That text has been lost in two
sections in 1-4 Kingdoms that have been replaced with the kaige-Th
revision' (2 Sam 11:1-24:25 and 2 Kings). Because of this historical
coincidence, ~Luc reflects in several sections of the historical books
important Greek and through them important Hebrew variants.
Editions: Beyond the manuscript data inc! uded in the Cambridge' and
G<:lttingen+ editions, the following eclectic+ editions provide the text of ~Luc: P.
de> Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testaml'llti canonicorum pars prior graece (Gmtingen:
Dieterich, 1883); Taylor* 1992-1993; Fernandez Marcos-Busto Saiz*. N. Fernandez
Marcos et al., lndice griego/hebreo del texto antioqumo en los Iibras ltist6ricos, vols. 1-2
(TECC 75; Madrid: CSJC, 2005) provides a Greek-Hebrew index.
Text-critical value. The text of ~Luc reflects !H+, but in the historical books it
reflects several significant variants .... e.g. 2 Sam 12:9 (p. 251 ); 23:8 (p. 248); 1 Kgs
16:34 (p. 324). The manuscripts of ~l.uc commence 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) at 1 Kgs
2:12 after the death of David ..... p. 308. See Cross* 1964, Spottorno*, Tov* 1999. At
the same time, if we were to reconstruct the Hebrew Vorlage of ~Luc in SamuelKings, it would not differ in a major way from the reconstructed Hebrew base of
the OG. It should be noted that the agreements of ~Luc with 4QSama are
negligible ..... R.J. Saley, "Proto-Lucian and 4QSama," RIOSCS 41 (2008) 44-5.
B. Grossfeld, A Bihliasraphy of Targum Literature, vols. 1-2 (Cincinnati I New York: Hebrew
Union College, 1972, 1977); http//: targum.lnfo/
P.S. Alexandt>r, "Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures," in Mulder, Mikra
(1988) 217-53; id., "Targum, Targumim," ABO VI (1992) 320-31; The Aramaic Bibil': Targums
i11 Their Historiml Co11text (ed. D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1994); U. Glessmer, Ei11lcitzws i11 die Tarsume wm Pentateuch (TSAJ 48;
Tl.ibingen: Mohr, 1995); J. Gray, "The Massoretic Text of the Book of Job, the Targum and
the Septuagint Version in the Light of tht Qumran Targum (11Qtarg)ob)," ZAW 86 (1974)
331-50; B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqt'los to Gttusis-Deutmmomy (The Aramaic Bible, The
Targums, vols. 6-9; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982-1988); M.M. Kasher, Aramaic Versio11s of
the Bible (Torah Shelemah 24; Heb.; Jerusalem: Mechon Torah Shtltmah, 1974); Y. Komlosh,
The Bible in the Lisht of the Aramaic Translaticms (Heb.; Ramal Can/Tel Aviv: Bar-llan
247 This dlscriplion follows my own view in Tov* 19lJ9, which is close to that of
Barth('lemy* 1963 who considtrs ~l.ut a representative of the pun form of the OC. It
difftrs from the description of Cross* 1964 who describes thl' first stratum of ~l.uc as an
innLr-Cnek nvision (tlw proto-Ludanic revision) towards <l Hebrew text.
148
University /Dvir, 1973); E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context
(BZAW 174; 1988); M. McNamara, "Targums," IDBSup, 856-61; D. Shepherd, Targum and
Translation: A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of fob (SSN 45; Assen: Royal Van
Gorcum, 2004); A. Tal, "Is There a Raison
for an Aramaic Targum in a HebrewSpeaking Society?" RE/160 (2001) 357-78; R. Weiss, "Recensional Variations between the
Aramaic Translation to Job from Qumran Cave 11 and the Massoretic Text," Shnaton 1
(Heb. with Eng. summ.; Jerusalem, 1975) 123-7; id., The Aramaic Targum of fob (Heb. with
Eng. summ.; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1979).
toofs: The text of all the Targumim (without variants) is searchable in modules in
Accordance, BibleWorks, Logos, and SESB with all the inner-translational searches in Aramaic,
but without indication of their relation torn.
Origin and background. The Targumim 248 were created within the Jewish
communities as the official companion tq Hebrew Scripture in rabbinic
Judaism, prepared for the learned, not for the masses (thus Tal*). These
translations facilitated the introduction of some modernizations and
exegesis in translation, while leaving the Hebrew text itself intact.
Throughout the centuries, the Jewish Targumim retained a more special
status within the Jewish communities than all other translations. The
medieval commentators often quoted from them, and they were printed
in full in the Rabbinic Bibles+ alongside the Hebrew text. Targumim were
made of each of the books of the Bible (excluding Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Daniel), sometimes more than one.
Some of the Targumim were originally created orally and were committed to
writing only at a later stage. From the outset, it seems surprising that Aramaic
translations were made at all, since this language is so close to Hebrew. The usual
explanation given is that the knowledge of Hebrew began to wane during the
Second Temple period, at which point it was replaced by Aramaic, the vernacular
language.
Although tradition ascribes the first Targum to Ezra, it is not clear when the
first Targumim were actually produced. Manuscript evidence is early, as the
Targum fragments found at Qumran are ascribed to the 2"d_pt centuries BCE
(4QtgLev = 4Q156) and the 1'1 century CE (4QtgJob = 4Q157, 11Qtg]ob).2 4 9 Some
Targumim are free, while others are literal, and it is often assumed that the freer
Targumim are earlier. At the same time, the literary crystallizations of these
Targumim may point in a different direction: The Palestinian Targumim of the
Torah are more free than the earlier <!: 0 .
Editions. Most Targumim have been published in diplomatic+ editions. 25
248The meaning of the word targum is explanation, commentary, and translation, and later,
specifically, translation into Aramaic.
249 See n. 254; D]D VI, 86-9 (4QtgLev); J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Targum of Leviticus from
Qumran Cave 4," Maarav 1 (1978) 5-23.
250 cr:Ps-J: D. Rieder, Pseudo-jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch. Copied
from the London MS (British Museum Add. 27031) Oerusalem: ha-Akademyah ha-Amerikanit
le-mada 'e ha-yahadut, 1974); Fragmentary Targumim: M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums
of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, vols. 1-11 (AnBib 76; Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1980); cr: 0 , cr:J to the Prophets, and the Targum to the Hagiographa: Sperber,
149
Text-critical value. The analyses of the translation character of all the

Targumim focus on exegetical differences between cr: and m. For example, the 650
minor differences between m and cr: 0 listed by Sperber251 are culled from
different manuscripts of cr: 0 , and many of them reflect contextual harmonizations
and changes-+ Komlosh*, 121-3, significantly decreasing the number of variants
surmised by Sperber. 252 For cr:J, Sperber provided even fewer examples. -+
Komlosh*, 294-350. All the Targumim thus reflect the medieval form of m (for
llQtgJob, see below). Tov*, "Aramaic" quotes many studies and statistics that
establish the closeness of cr: tom.
11QtgJob deviates slightly from all other textual witnesses.-+ Weiss* 1979, 2730; Gray*; Shepherd*. Since the Qumran fragments provide the earliest evidence
of any Targum, possibly the other Targumim also once deviated more from m,
but were subsequently adapted towards its text. Alternatively, the milieu that
created llQtgJob (not the Qumran community) followed different approaches
from those taken in the milieu in which the other Targumim were created.
a. Targumim to the Torah

a. Targum Onqelos
Targum Onqelos (<!: 0 ) is the best known of the Targumim and, according
to b. Meg. 3a, it was made by Onqelos the Proselyte, "under the guidance
of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua." -+ p. 144. As a rule, <!: 0 follows the plain
sense of Scripture, but in the poetical sections it contains many exegetical
elements.
Scholars are divided in their opinions about the date of the present form and
origin (Babylon or Israel) of cr: 0 (Pt, 3'ct, or 51h century CE; Alexander* 1992, 321
suggests the 41h-5th centuries for the final redaction). Nevertheless, even if its final
literary form is relatively late, it was possibly preceded by a written or oral
formulation similar to 4QtgLev (4Q156).
Targumim
Jerusalem Targum I = Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (cr:Ps-J). Since the 14th
century, this translation has been incorrectly named Targum Jonathan
(based on an abbreviation '"n, wrongly explained as Targum YerushalBible, vols. 1-IVa (based on several manuscripts) and the series Targum Jonatan de los
Profetas primeros/posteriores en tradici6n babil6nica (TECC 24; Madrid: CSIC, 1987-1997);
the Targum from the Cairo Genizah+: M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1986). See also notes 253-4.
On all these editions, see L. Dfez Merino, "Targum Manuscripts and Critical Editions,"
in Beattie-McNamara*, 51-91.
251 A. Sperber, "The Targum Onkelos in Its Relation to the Masoretic Hebrew Text," PAAJR
6 (1935) 309-51; id., Bible, val. !VB (1973) 265-375.
252 Besides, even if all the examples were valid, these variants would reflect no more than
0.5 percent of the words of m.
150
mi). cr:Ps-J also integrated elements from <r: 0 . Alexander* 1992, 322 ascribes
its final redaction to the 7th-8th centuries.
Jerusalem Targum II, III= The "Fragment(ary) Targum(im)" (cr:Ps-J), so
named because only fragments have been preserved in manuscripts and
printed editions. -+ plate 26*
Targumim from the Cairo Genizah+.-+ Klein (n. 250)
MS Vatican Neophyti 1 (= cr:N) of the Torah, discovered in 1956 in a
manuscript dating from 1504 or slightly later. -+ plate 24*. According to
its editor, the Targum contained in this manuscript originated in the 1st
or 2nd century CE or even earlier, 253 while others ascribe the translation to
the Talmudic period (4 1h or 5th century CE).
b. Targum to the Prophets
Targum Jonathan (cr:J) to the Prophets. The nature of cr:J varies from book to
book, while it generally resembles <r: 0 in style, language, and approach.
The Babylonian tradition ascribes it to Jonathan ben 'Uzziel, a pupil of
Hillel the Elder.
c. Targumim to the Hagiographa
According to the story in t. Shabb. 13.2; b. Shabb. 115b; y. Shabb. 16.15c, the
Job Targum already existed at the time of Gamaliel the Elder (first half of
the 1st century CE), and an early source of this Targum was indeed found
at Qumran (11QtgJob). 254 11QtgJob contains a literal translation. The
printed version of the Job Targum differs from llQtgJob. For Esther, two
different Targumim, Targum rishon, "first Targum," and Targum sheni,
"second Targum," are known, both of which are paraphrastic and
midrashic+ in nature. <!:-Canticles bears a similar character. <!:-Proverbs is
closely related to 5 and may have been translated from that text.255
4. Peshitta (5)
P.B. Dirksen, An Annotated Bibliography of the Peshitta of the Old Testament (Monographs of
the Peshitta Institute 5; Leiden: Brill, 1989); http://call.cn.huc.edu/.
S.P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Gorgias Handbooks 7; Piscataway, NJ, 2006); P.B.
Dirksen, "The Old Testament Peshitta," in Mulder, Mikra, 255-97; id. & M.J. Mulder, The
Peshitta: Its Early Text and History (Leiden: Brill, 1988); A. Gelston, The Peshitta of the Twelve
Prophets (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987); M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, "Prolegomena to a Critical
Edition of the Peshitta," ScrHier 8 (1961) 26-67; id., "trgwmym swryym," EncBib Oerusalem:
253 A. Dfez Macho, Neophiti I, vols. 1-V (Madrid/Barcelona: CSIC, 1968-1978).
254 Publication and analysis: DJD XXIII. See further: M. Sokoloff, The Targum to fob from
Qumran Cave XI (Ramat Gan: Bar-IIan University, 1974); Weiss* 1979.
255see Alexander* 1988,225.
.
151
Bialik Institute, 1982) 8.847-54; B. ter Haar Romeny, "Hypotheses on the Development of
Judaism and Christianity in Syria in the Period after 70 C.E.," in Matthew and the Didache:
Two Documents from tl1e Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen/Minneapolis: Royal Van
Gorcum I Fortress Press, 2005) 13-35; K.D. Jenner, "La Peshitta: fille du texte masson?tique?"
in L'enfance de Ia Bible hebraique: Histoire du texte de /'Ancien Testament (ed. A. Schenker & P.
Hugo; MdB 52; Geneve: Labor et Fides, 2005) 238-63; Y. Maori, The Peshitta Version of the
Pentateuch and Early Jewish Exegesis (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995); id., "Methodological
Criteria for Distinguishing between Variant Vorlage and Exegesis in the Peshitta
Pentateuch," in The Peshitta as a Translation (ed. P.B. Dirksen & A. van der Kooij;
Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995) 103-28; M.J. Mulder, "The Use of the Peshitta in Textual
Criticism," in La Septuaginta en Ia investigacion contemporanea (ed. N. Fernandez Marcos;
TECC 34; Madrid: CSIC, 1985) 37-53; Targum Studies, II. Targum and Peshitta (ed. P.V.M.
Flesher; South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 165; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press,
1992); A. Voobus, "Syriac Versions," IDBSup, 848-54; M.P. Weitzman, "The Peshi.tta Psalter
and Its Hebrew Vorlage," VT 35 (1985) 341-54; id., "From Judaism to Christianity: The
Syriac Version of the Hebrew Bible," in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman
Empire (ed. J. Lieu eta!.; London/New York: Routledge, 1992) 147-73; id., The Syriac Version
of the Old Testament: An Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
toors: The text of 5 (without variants) is searchable in CAL, enabling innertranslational searches.--+ http://call.cn.huc.edu
Origin and background. The name Peshitta, "the simple <translation>,"

was used for the translation of the Bible into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic.
This name was meant to distinguish the Peshitta translation from the
Syro-Hexapla (the translation of the Hexapla+ into Syriac, prepared in the
71h century by Paul from Tella), since the language of that version was
often unnatural. Several scholars identified presumably Christian
elements in S (contested by Weitzman* 1999, 240-44) and, accordingly,
believe that s originated with the early Christians in the 1st or 2nct century
CE, possibly in the 2nd century CE at the time of the conversion to
Christianity of Abgar IX, King of Edessa. Other scholars (among them
Maori*) showed that this translation contains a distinct substratum of
Jewish exegesis, especially in the Torah. The evidence was reviewed in
detail by Dirksen*, Mikra, 295 and Weitzman 1992*. Dirksen concluded
that "no decisive arguments for either Christian or Jewish authorship
have been advanced." Since the individual books of S derived from
different circles, it nevertheless should be concluded that the Jewish
element is clearly visible, be it Jewish-Rabbinic as claimed by Maori* or
Jewish-non-Rabbinic as claimed by Weitzman* 1999, 239-40 and ter Haar
Romeny*.
Evidence. The oldest dated manuscript of S is the MS London, British Library,
Add. 14,512, written in 459-60. A critical edition2 56 of S has been prepared by the
256 The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshi_tta Version (Leiden: Brill, 1966- ). The
first volumes of this edition offer a diplomatic+ edition of codex Ambrosianus. The
152
Peshitta Institute of the University of Leiden on the basis of codex Ambrosianus

(Milan, Ambrosian Librar1', B. 21 Inf., 6th_7th centuries -+ plate 25*), accompanied
by a critical apparatus+.25
Text-critical value. The Hebrew source of S was close tom, although reflecting
more variants than the Targumim and D. Tov*, "Aramaic" quotes many studies
and statistics that establish the closeness of S tom. Textual Differences between
the books of S are recognizable, but no precise data are available. Probably its
greatest deviations from m appear in S-Chronicles. 258 In several ancient Gacobite)
manuscripts, Job follows the Torah.-+ p. 97
Some scholars note distinctive agreements between S and the Targumim or \B,
which have been explained in different ways. Among other things, it has been
argued that S either was influenced by these Targumim or translated one of
them. In some books, the wording of S is close to lB in exclusive common
elements, but the background of these agreements is not sufficiently clear. In
Isaiah and Psalms, the two translations often reflect a common exegetical
tradition, 259 while in Proverbs the translation may have been based on \B.260
Other scholars believe that S often relied on lB as a source of lexical information
and exegesis. Therefore, in all cases of agreement between S and lB against m, S is
possibly not an independent witness and hence does not present a variant.
5. Vulgate (D)
M. Graves, Jerome's Hebrew Philology. A Study Based on His Commentary on Jeremiah (Suppl. to
VC; Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2007); A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible,
A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993); B. KedarKopfstein, "Divergent Hebrew Readings in Jerome's Isaiah," Textus 4 (1964) 176-210; id.,
The Vulgate as a Translation, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1968; id., "Textual
Gleanings from the Vulgate to Jeremiah," Textus 7 (1969) 36-58; id., "The Hebrew Text of
Joel as Reflected in the Vulgate," Textus 9 (1981) 16-35; id., "The Latin Translations," in
Mulder, Mikra (1988) 299-338; M. Meiser, "Hieronymus als Textkritiker," in Kraus-Karrer,
Septuaginta, 256-71; W. Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus fiir die alttestamentliche
Textkritik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1875); F. Stummer, Einfiihrung in die
lateinische Bibel (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1928).
volumes appearing after 1976 emend the text of this codex if it is not supported by two
other manuscripts from the period preceding 1000.
257 Non-critical editions of S include S. Lee (London: British and Foreign Bible Society,
1823) and the editions published in Urmia (1852) and Mosul (1888-1892). Lamsa, Holy
Bible offers a modern translation, not always precise, and Borbone* presents a bilingual
concordance. See further Brock* 2006, 159-60 (editions, concordances).
25 8see Weitzman* 1994, 1999. In this book, clusters of verses are lacking (e.g. 1 Chr 2:47-49;
4:16-18, 34-37; 7:34-38; 8:17-22) and added (e.g. after 1 Chr 12:1; 29:18), but they may
reflect the translator's harmonizing tendencies.
259 0. especially L. Delekat, "Die Peschitta zu Jesaja zwischen Targum und Septuaginta,"
Bib 38 (1957) 185-99, 321-35; id., "Ein Septuagintatargum," VT 8 (1958) 225-52; J.A.
Lund, The Influence of the Septuagint on the Peshitta: A Re-t?Valuation of Criteria in Light of
Comparative Study of the Versions in Genesis and Psalms, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University,
Jerusalem 1988.
26 0 For the data, see especially A.J. Baumgartner, Etude critique sur l'etat du texte du livre des
Proverbes d'apres les principales traductions anciennes (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1890).
153
-tfectronic tools: The text of Weber's edition (without variants --+ n. 262) is searchable in a
module in Accordance, Bib/eWorks, Logos, SESB, and additional computer programs enabling
inner-translational searches in Latin, but without indication of their relation tom.
Origin and background. Between 390 and 405 CE, the Church Father Jerome
(Hieronymus) translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin after having
undertaken a revision of the Vetus Latina+ of Psalms, later called
"Psalterium Romanum," and a revision of the book of Psalms in the
Hexapla+, the "Psalterium Gallicanum." Jerome's first translational
efforts were thus confined to internal revisions within the Latin Bible, but
at a later stage he understood the importance of the Hebrew source text
or, in his words, the hebraica veritas ("the Hebrew truth"). At that point,
he embarked upon the translation of Hebrew Scripture into Latin with
the help of Jewish scholars. The name Vulgata, "the common one,"
reflects the degree of popularity of this translation.
Jerome generally followed his Hebrew source closely, while occasionally
allowing for non-stereotyped renderings in accord with his literary principles. 261
Jerome also wrote commentaries on most biblical books.
Editions. Two critical editions are based on medieval manuscripts, the
earliest manuscript being codex Amiatinus dating to the beginning of the 8 1h
century. 262
Text-critical value. D is important for the history of the exegesis of the Bible,
especially when compared with Jerome's commentaries on the Minor Prophets,
Isaiah, and Jeremiah, written between 406 and 420 CE. In these commentaries,
Jerome often allowed himself to deviate from his earlier translation. 263 The
commentaries, as well as the translation, show that Jerome did not base himself
exclusively on m, but was often guided by the exegesis of , Symmachus+,
Aquila+, and kaige-Th+ (in this order). The text ofD reflects m. 264 Tov*, "Aramaic"
quotes many studies and statistics that establish the closeness of D tom.
261see Kedar-Kopfstein* 1964-1988.
262 The Benedictines are preparing an edectic+ edition entitled Biblia Sacra iuxta Iatinam
Vulgatam Persionem (Rome: Vatican Press, 1926- ). This edition contains a great manymainly orthographic-variants. However, the eclectic+ text does not always evince
judicious insight, with readings often being preferred on account of their similarity tom
or
The editio minor of R. Weber, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem (2nd ed.;
Stuttgart: Wi.irttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1975) contains fewer data in its apparatus, but
shows keener insight. The text of 0 is occasionally corrected according to the other
versions or m in the Nova Vulgata, Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio (2nd ed.; Citta del Vaticano:
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998), which therefore does not serve as a critical edition of
0.
263 When he wrote his commentaries, Jerome sometimes wondered why his earlier
translation in the Vulgate differed from the manuscript at his disposal years later; the
reason must have been the use of a slightly different manuscript for the earlier
enterprise, as suggested by Kedar-Kopfstein, "Isaiah," 209.
264 Nowack*, 23-54 gives a list of apparent deviations of I) from m.
154
6. Arabic Translation of Saadia
The Arabic translation by Saadia (882-942 CE) of some biblical books is

the last of the ancient translations and at the same time the first medieval
translation.
Editions. The older editions of this translation represent, in one way or
another, the MS Arabe I of the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. Recent editions are
also based on other manuscripts: P. de Lagarde (Leipzig: Treubner, 1867;
Gottingen: Kaestner, 1876 [Psalms, Job, Proverbs]), J. Derenbourg (Paris: Leroux,
1893 [Torah]}, and P. Kahle (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904 [brief selections]).
Text-critical value. The Arabic translation faithfully represents m.
3
HISTORY OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT
A. Relation between the Texts

Chiesa, "Appunti" (1990); Cross, "Fixation" (1998); O.W. Gooding, "An Appeal for a
Stricter Terminology in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," JSS 21 (1976) 15-25;
Kahle, "Untersuchungen" (1915); Kittel, Notwendigkeit; Klein, Textual Criticism; Talmon,
"Old Testament Text" (1970); id., "New Outlook" (2010).
Section A analyzes the complex relation between the textual witnesses

described in the previous chapter. Over the years, scholars have
approached this topic in different ways, which in turn has influenced
other aspects of the study of the biblical text. The discovery of the Judean
Desert texts was a turning point in our relation to the biblical texts.
1. Relation between the Texts in Research until1947
Until 1947, when the first Qumran scrolls were discovered, the biblical text was
known from many textual witnesses, both Hebrew and translated, early and late.
These texts were generally described according to a certain internal hierarchy.
From the beginning of the 171h century, when w. became known in Europe,
scholars presupposed the central status of m, w., and the Hebrew Vorlage of 1\3,
and placed the remaining textual witnesses in a subordinate relation to one or the
other of them, usually described as recensions or text types. At the same time, the
term recension is also used with the general meaning of textual tradition or simply
text.
As a rule, the text of the Torah has been represented as an entity subdivided
into three recensions or text types: m, w., and 1\3. Moreover, scholars regarded these
three texts as central axes around which other texts formed three distinct groups.
The text of the Prophets and Hagiographa was similarly presented as consisting
of two recensions (there is no Samaritan text of these books), 1 although it was
sometimes nevertheless described as consisting of three groups. The theories,
descriptions, and terminology changed from one generation to the next, but the
assumption of a tripartite division of the texts of the Torah and also, occasionally,
of the rest of the biblical books remained constant throughout. Likewise, the
understanding that these three texts (or two of them) constitute the central pillars
However, there is a Samaritan text of Joshua (seep. 75, n. 120).
156
of the biblical text remained constant, and far-reaching theories on the

development of the biblical text, such as those of de Lagarde and Kahle*, were
based upon this belief. - cl
The two conceptions described above developed as self-evident facts,
although they have yet to be proven. From the 17th century until 1947, relatively
few studies were written on the relation between the textual witnesses and the
assumed development process of the biblical text. The first thorough description
of its development is contained in Kahle* 1915. Before this time, scholars referred
to the character of each textual witness separately, sometimes in connection with
its relationship tom.
Even though few comprehensive descriptions of the history of the biblical text
were written in the period reviewed, the assumed relation between the textual
witnesses was always reflected in the terminology used for these witnesses. This
terminology is subject to passing tendencies and, upon analyzing it, one may
draw conclusions concerning the approach of scholars to the textual witnesses.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, the three main texts were usually called
<or: Alexandrian> recension" (the
recensions, more specifically "the
reconstructed Hebrew Vorlage of
"the Babylonian recension" (!11), and the
"Samaritan recension" (w. ).
A change in the terminology began to occur with the appearance of Kahle*'s
influential study on the text of the Torah. Kahle* 1915, 436 called the three main
witnesses of the Torah "drei Haupttypen des Pentateuchtextes." In his view, "the
three main types of the text of the Pentateuch" differed from each other
recensionally, that is, each of them had undergone different recensional activity.
Thus, in Kahle's opinion, !11 did not always exist in its present form, but was
created as the result of a process of revision of earlier texts in approximately 100
CE. In fact, Kahle's innovation was one of terminology rather than of the concept
underlying it, for he expressed ideas that were current in previous generations,
while using the term recension. This new terminology slowly penetrated the
scholarly literature, which now often spoke about text types ("Texttypen"). The
clearest exemplification of Kahle's ideas is to be found in a chart in Sellin-Fohrer,
Einleitung, 567 in which the development of the text of the Torah is described as a
and w.), presenting three text types. This chart
three-branched tree {!11,
illustrates the classical view of both the tripartite division and the character of the
textual witnesses. It should be noted that in the past (as in the present), there was
no uniform terminology for the textual witnesses. Various scholars used, and
continue to use, different terms when referring to the same entity. For example,
de Lagarde (n. 2) used the terms recension and family interchangeably, and this
also applies to the mixed terminology used by those who adhere to the "theory of
local texts." - pp. 173-4. On this lack of clarity in terminology, see especially
Gooding*.
The studies undertaken and conclusions drawn from these views are
ins.tructive for understanding scholarly opinion on the relation between the
textual witnesses. These studies show the self-imposed limitations of the
scholars' approach, since they confined themselves to a comparison of the three
2
For example, Olshausen, Psa/men, 17-22; de Lagarde, Anmerkungen, 2-4; Wellhausen,

Bucher Samuelis, 3, 5; Thenius, Biicher Samuels, LXX; Swete, fntroduction, 1-28; Thackeray,
The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 13; Nyberg, "Problem," 254.- pp. 170-73
A: Relation between the Texts
157
so-called central texts mentioned above. Likewise, upon its discovery, each new
source was immediately integrated into the existing framework of a bipartite or,
at an earlier stage, tripartite division. This approach can be illustrated by
considering the evaluation of lll. at a time when scholars still adhered to the view
of there being two central recensions (m and
From the 171h century, it was
declared that 1900 of the assumed 6,000 differences between lll. and m involved
readings common to lll. and
-+ p. 79, n. 126. After scholars had recognized this,
an endless number of theories appeared concerning the special relation between
lll. and
Such theories derived from the restricted view that the biblical text was
current in a small number of recensions and that all textual witnesses necessarily
belonged to one of them. In this case, it was suggested that was translated from
lll.,3 or that lll. was revised according to
or, conversely, that
was revised
according to lll.. 4 These and other theories show the limitations of an approach
that was bound by the assumption of a tripartite or bipartite division of the
textual witnesses of the Bible. 5
The tripartite division model that was originally devised for the Torah, in
which lll. has been preserved alongside m and
was later also applied to the
other books of the Bible, especially by scholars who followed the "local texts
theory."-+ pp. 173-4
2. Relation between the Texts in Research since 1947

When the Qumran scrolls were found in 1947, scholars already had welldeveloped views concerning the transmission of the biblical texts. With the
discovery of the first Qumran scrolls, these views, including the depiction of the
relation between the textual witnesses, were not altered because it always takes
time for the ramifications of new discoveries to be absorbed. Scholars continued
to determine the place of the newly found scrolls within the framework of the
tripartite division of the textual witnesses of the Torah that had been developed
earlier. With regard to the Prophets and Hagiographa, some scholars thought in
terms of a bipartite division, while others adhered also here to a tripartite
division. Scholars also continued the approach of previous generations in
characterizing many Qumran scrolls as recensions or text types.
The assigning of individual Qumran texts to a particular text type is reflected
in the literature from the first volumes of the DJD series onwards, when most of
the new scrolls were described as belonging to them "type," while some scrolls
were assigned to
or lll. "type."6-+ p. xxxiv
3
4
5
6
Thus L. de Dieu, J. Selden( us), J.H. Hottinger( us), and J. Hassencamp(ius); for a detailed
description of their views and bibliographical references, see Gesenius, Pent. Sam., 11.
Thus H. Grotius and J. Usserius.-+ Gesenius, Pent. Sam., 13
For a reinvestigation of the relation between IB and lli, see p. 79, n. 126.
For example, 2QDeut' was described as reflecting a textual tradition close to IB and 0 (in
DJD III, 61). According to J.T. Milik, SQDeut was systematically revised according to
the Hebrew Vorlage of IB (DJD III, 170). Milik similarly described SQKings as reflecting a
mediating position between the recension of m and that of IB (DJD III, 172). While these
three short texts did not display a convincing level of agreement with IB, other texts
showed surprising proximity to lB. The first such scroll to be considered close to IB was
the rather well-preserved 4QSama. The approach to this scroll, which was soon to be
accepted in scholarship, was indicated by the name of an early study by F.M. Cross: "A
158
On the basis of these finds, it was now stressed that the Qumran scrolls can be
divided into three textual groups, which were congruent with the three "text
and U1? Although most of
types" known before the discovery of the scrolls: m,
the texts found at Qumran actually belonged to one text type, namely that of m, it
could not be denied-or so it was claimed-that all three text types were
represented at Qumran. Even if some scholars insisted on the textual plurality of
the Qumran scrolls, they nevertheless noted that three textual streams were
visible within this variety.8
3. A New Approach
m,
, and
w. have rightly been described as the main sources of our
knowledge of the biblical text in the period preceding the Qumran finds,
since all the other sources reflect far fewer significant variants, and most
of them resemble m (m +). Therefore, before 1947, although justifiably
described as the three most important textual traditions, these witnesses
were incorrectly presented as the sole recensions of the biblical text. True,
at that time, scholars could not have known whether or not further texts
would be discovered. However, it was erroneous then, as it is today, to
describe these texts as recensions or text types. This is not merely a
matter of terminology, since scholars indeed believed that these
witnesses reflected three separate recensions that had reached their
present form after various stages of editing and textual manipulation.
As an alternative to the generally accepted theory of a tripartite division of the
textual witnesses, it was suggested by Tov in 1982 that the three abovementioned textual witnesses constitute three of a larger number of texts. 9 This
suggestion follows an assumption of a multiplicity of texts, rather than that of a
tripartite division. However, not all the texts are unrelated to each other, since
one can recognize among them two or more clusters. .... p. 186. When analyzing
these texts that include a few clusters, we should remember that only a few of a
New Qumran Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint,"
BASOR 132 (1953) 15-26 ..... p. 109. Similar claims were afterwards made by Cross
regarding 4QSamb in "The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran," JBL 74 (1955) 147-72. In
ALQ 1 (1958) 133--40, Cross had remarkably good insights into the scrolls that he
considered to be close to II} and that were eventually accepted as such ..... pp. 107-10.
The argumentation was completed when additional ("pre-Samaritan") texts that
belonged to the tu "type" were discovered at Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb .
.... pp. 90-93
7 For example, Cross, ALQ3 (1995) and "Fixation" (1998), speaks about text types and
recensions; P.W. Skehan, "The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old
Testament," BA 28 (1965) 99; ].T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea
(SBT 26; London: SCM, 1959) 20-31; Goshen-Gottstein, HUB, Isaiah, xiv, xvi; J.R. Davila,
"Text-Type and Terminology: Genesis and Exodus as Test Cases," RevQ 16 (1993) 3-37.
Lange, Handb11ch (2009) consistently speaks about "Texttypen."
8 For example, Talmon* 1970, 185, 192.
9 "A Modem Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls," HUCA 53 (1982) 11-27, on
which see Chiesa* 1992.
159
larger number of early texts have been preserved, thus complicating an

exhaustive view of the relation between the known early texts. The preservation
of the early texts was to a great extent coincidental. ..... Tov, "Coincidental Textual
Nature." The preserved early texts relate to each other in an intricate web of
agreement and difference, while each text also contains unique readings, that is,
readings found only in that source.
This view challenges the characterization of the textual witnesses as text types
and recensions. They are just texts. The employment of the terms text types and
recensions requires that the texts differ from one another typologically, that is,
that each of them be characterized by distinctive textual features, such as
expansionistic, abbreviating, or harmonizing. However, this claim cannot be
made regarding two of the witnesses under discussion even though each of them
does reflect typological features in small units. m reflects a text like all other texts,
and has no specific characteristics; the only feature that could be attributed to it is
the somewhat corrupt nature of m-Samuel. ..... p. 189. reflects a text and not a
textual recension, 10 although it contains some literary editions differing from m+.
..... ch. 7B. On the other hand, w. indeed reflects certain typological features ..... pp.
80-87, but since these features are also found in the pre-Samaritan texts, which
do not share the Samaritan ideology ..... pp. 90-93, no claim can be made for a
Samaritan recension; rather, the w.-group shares some typological features.
Accordingly, the theory of the division of the biblical witnesses into three
recensions cannot be maintained. It apparently resulted from a prejudice that was
born out of a combination of two factors: on the one hand, the preservation of
three representatives of the biblical text by important religious groups and on the
other hand, the (unconscious?) drawing of a parallel with the traditionally
accepted tripartite division of the New Testament manuscripts. The preservation
of these three texts of Hebrew Scripture was, however, coincidental on a textual
level, even though it reflects a socio-religious reality: they were considered
authoritative in three religious communities, m for the Jews, w. for the
Samaritans, and
for the early Christian community ...... Chiesa* 1990. The
recognition of this socio-religious reality was stressed by Talmon * 1970.
If the assumption of a tripartite division is a matter of prejudice, attention
should now be directed to the actual relation between the textual witnesses. The
textual reality of the Qumran texts .does not attest to three groups of textual
witnesses, but rather to a textual multiplicity displaying an unlimited number of
texts. Four different groups are found among the Qumran texts ..... pp. 107-10,
with the textually non-aligned texts containing an almost endless number of
individual sources. For example, 11QpaleoLeva is not particularly close to any of
the three "main" textual witnesses.l 1 Accordingly, this scroll forms a fourth text
10 In view of the different backgrounds of the translation units included
it would be
unexpected for the books
to have textual features in common. ..... pp. 135-40
11 The scroll agrees at times with m, but sometimes also deviates from it. The same applies
to its relation to lU. and
In addition, it contains exclusive readings not found
elsewhere ...... E. Tov, "The Textual Character of the Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave
11," Shnaton 3 (1978-1979) 238-44 (Heb. with Eng. summ.); K. Mathews, "The Leviticus
Scroll (llQpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible," CBQ 48 (1986) 171-207 (198).
160
alongside the three sources that were known before the Qumran discoveries.12
This text possesses no specific characteristics, but its uniqueness consists in its
independence from the other textual witnesses. These four textual witnesses
relate to each other in a network of agreements, differences, and unique readings.
w. and \\3 are closer to one another than to m because of their common
harmonizations.-+ p. 136
The discovery of the Leviticus scroll was coincidental, just as the preservation
of \\3 and w. alongside m was a matter of textual coincidence. Therefore, it would
not be logical to assume that only four early texts existed for the book of
Leviticus. Rather, one has to think in terms of a larger number of such texts that
related to each other in the same manner as the four that are known. In other
books, one also discerns more than just two or three texts. -+ 4QRrc-e, 4QJosha,
and the other non-aligned texts mentioned on p. 109
Therefore, m, \\3, w., which were often described as the three central witnesses
of the biblical text, actually reflect only three of a much larger number of ancient
texts. This assumed textual plurality is illustrated by the different groups of texts
found at Qumran .... pp. 107-10. Within this variety at Qumran, a few groups of
closely related texts are discernible ... p. 186, among which the w.-group bears
typological features ...... pp. 80-87
4. Central Position ofm in Tradition and Research
The centrality of m in the minds of scholars comes to light in all aspects of

biblical studies. It is only natural for m to be considered the central text,
since it is the best-preserved of the Hebrew Bible. All scholarly and nonscholarly editions of Hebrew Scripture revolve around m - p. 365, and
many commentaries and introductions focus on that version. 13 This
centrality also shines through in the description of the textual witnesses
as "Masoretic and non-Masoretic text forms," 14 and it comes to light in
statements about the "excellent preservation of the biblical text" when it
is recognized that the non-m witnesses do not deviate much from m. 15 In
12 On the other hand, D.N. Freedman, "Variant Readings in the Leviticus Scroll from
Qumran Cave 11," CBQ 36 (1974) 525-34 attempted to determine the place of this scroll
within the tripartite division. See also Freedman-Mathews, Leviticus.
13 For details, see my study "The Place of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of
the Hebrew Bible: The Relevance of Canon," in The Canon Debate (ed. L. McDonald and
J.A. Sanders; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002) 234-51 (236-9).
14 Steuernagel, Einleitung, 19-85; Sellin-Fohrer, Einleilung, 538-64; Eissfeldt, Introduction,
679-721.
15 For example, B. Levine, Numbers 1-20 (AB 4; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993) 85; M.
Rosel, "Die Textiiberlieferung des Suches Numeri am Beispiel der Bileamerziihlung," in
Safer Mahir, 207-26 (225); S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (London: SCM, 1993) 29; J. Milgrom,
Le<iticus 1-16 (AB; New York/London: Doubleday, 1991) 2: "The text of Leviticus is in
an excellent state of preservation"; Tigay, Deuteronomy, xi: "Deuteronomy, like the rest
of the Torah, was copied with extreme care, and its text is among the best preserved in
the Bible."
161
such cases, we are told to trust m while, actually, the textual situation
merely indicates that scribes did not change the text common to all
witnesses to a great extent in the course of its transmission.
B. Shape of the Biblical Text in Early Periods
Barthelemy, Interim Report, vi-vii; Barbone, Osea; Chiesa, "Appunti" (1990); Brooke,
"Demise" (2005); Childs, Introduction, 84-106; R.B. Coote, "The Application of Oral Theory
to Biblical Hebrew Literature," Semeia 5 (1976) 60-62; Eichhorn, Einleitung, I, II.l; Epp,
Perspectives, 551-93; Cashen-Gottstein, "History" (1957); Greenberg, "Ancient Versions";
Jepsen, "Aufgaben"; Kahle, Untersuchungen (1915); id., Die hebrdischen Handschriften aus der
Hollie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1951); Kittel, Notwendigkeit; A. van der Kooij, "Textgeschichte /Textkritik der Bibel," TRE XXXIII.l /2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001) 154; id.,
"Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Its Aim and Method," in Paul, Emanuel, 729-39; B.
Lemmelijn, "What Are We Looking for in Doing Old Testament Text-Critical Research,"
JNWSL 23 (1997) 69-80; G.D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible
Textual Criticism (SBL Text-Critical Studies 7; Atlanta: SBL, 2010); Olshausen, Psalmcn, 1722; Stipp, "Textkritik"; Talman, "Synonymous Readings" (2010 [1961]); id., "Old Testament
Text" (1970) 162, 198-9; id., "New Outlook" (2010 [1975]); id., "Between the Bible and the
Mishna," in id., Qumran (1989) 11-52; id., "1Qisa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the
Book of Isaiah," ibid., 131-41; id., "Ancient Versions" (2010 [2000]); Tur-Sinai, ktby hqds;
Ulrich, DSS, 51-78; Walters, "Hannah and Anna."
1. Necessity to Accept a View on the Original Text
Before an interest in the early or original shape of the biblical text

developed, the biblical text was considered to have existed originally in
the same form as that known from the medieval m, considered the textus
receptus+. However, with the development of critical analysis in the 17th
century and the comparison of textual witnesses, a new approach was
created, according to which one could "improve" m by adopting some
details from or one of the other textual witnesses.
Critical scholars believe that. the various textual witnesses of the
Hebrew Bible go back to an original text, but this suggestion is not
accepted by all, nor is it clear what is meant by an original text. Although
the assumption of an original text is commonly accepted in the study of
classical texts and the NT -+ Epp*, in the case of Hebrew Scripture there
are other options.
The two main models suggested, that of (a) multiple pristine texts and
(b) an original text or a series of determinative (original) texts, are
analyzed on pp. 163-9. Both models have been suggested with different
variations, between which it is hard to decide on the basis of either
internal evidence or external parallels. Internal evidence is lacking (the
Dead Sea Scrolls are much later than the composition dates of the biblical
books) and external parallels are probably irrelevant because each
162
literature developed differently. - n. 23. One would therefore prefer to

leave the solution of this problem to historians, but the issue of the
original text has very practical aspects for exegetes. In our view, scholars
should express an opinion on this issue that guides them in determining
their approach to the differences among textual witnesses.
Those who adhere to the assumption of an original text (model b on p. 163)
may try to reconstruct it, partially or fully, from these textual witnesses ..... pp.
265-6, while those who reject this view rarely resort to the search for an original
text and sometimes renounce it altogether. We hasten to add that, in our view,
the question of the original text of the biblical books cannot be resolved
unequivocally, since there is no solid evidence to aid us in deciding in either
direction. As a result, the textual praxis may never be described in a definitive
way and each generation has to redefine the issues involved.
It is difficult to describe the views from which one has to choose at the
beginning of our analysis, since they have not been clearly defined. 16 Those who
adhere to the assumption of an original text (model b) should probably content
themselves with a vague theoretical statement involving an opinion expressed on
its repercussions. It is particularly important to know if a particular stage in the
development of the biblical book can be identified as the original text. In our
view, the alternative assumption of multiple pristine texts (model a on p. 163)
does not constitute a viable model that explains the development of the texts and
the relation between the existing differences.
A discussion of the original Scripture text pertains not only to an analysis of
the textual praxis, but also to our understanding of the development of the
biblical books, including their literary history. Some scholars support one of these
two basic positions, while others consciously refrain from holding a view.l 7 Since
the questions are very complex, this position is understandable. 18 However, for
the praxis of textual criticism, in our view one of the two positions should be
accepted. Almost all scholars are involved with the evaluation of textual variants,
but often they may not be aware that this procedure actually requires the
acceptance of the idea of an original text in some form. For those who claim that a
certain reading is preferable to another one are actually presupposing an original
text, since they claim that that reading better reflects the original composition
16 Apart from the views of de Lagarde and Kahle ..... pp. 171-3, others determined their
positions on the basis of the evidence itself-as opposed to abstract arguments-but
usually were not able to break free from the positions of the two mentioned scholars.
The presentations of the different positions by Childs* and before him by Kittel* and
Jepsen* are probably the most detailed (the tables in Deist, Witnesses, 11-15, represent
the various positions in a concrete manner).
17 E.g. S.R. Driver, Introduction (1898); Roberts, OTTV (1951); R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to
the Old Testament (London: A. & C. Black, 1953) 71-126; Sellin-Fohrer, Ein/eitung (1965)
538--67; R. Smend, Die Entstehung des A/ten Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978)
13-32; Childs, Introduction (1979) 103--4; Weingreen, Introduction (1982); Brooke,
"Demise" (2005).
18 Lemmelijn*, 77: " ... I would rather start from the observation that at a certain moment
in history several texts have indeed been current ... without positing anything about
their origin and the phases of their prior textual history."
B: Shape of the Biblical Text in Early Periods
163
from the point of view of the language, vocabulary, ideas, or meaning.- p. 280.
The very use of such an argument is based on the perception of an original text,
since otherwise two or more different readings could have been "equally
original" thus negating the need to make a decision. Therefore, the authors and
users of the BH-series+ and OHB+, and the authors of all critical commentaries by
implication accept the idea of an original text. On the other hand, the authors and
users of the HUB+ edition do not have to make a decision because that edition
does not include value judgments. This understanding may be illustrated by an
example, viz., the well-known variation in Gen 2:2 between the "seventh" (m ([ 0
Ps-J N D) and "sixth" day (UL I1J s).- p. 244. Those who claim that one of the two
readings is preferable (e.g. REB: "sixth") assume that that reading reflects or
could reflect the original text. By claiming that either the reading of !11+ or the
other one better reflects the original composition, they leave no room for the
model of multiple pristine readings as analyzed in model (a) below.
2. Two Models
In our view - p. 162, scholars involved in textual comparisons cannot

afford themselves the "luxury" of not having an opinion on the original
text of Hebrew Scripture. 19 Two models have been devised for the early
written shape of Scripture, supported mainly by theoretical arguments
(-the textual theories analyzed on pp. 169-74) and less so by actual data:
a. Multiple pristine texts.
b. An original text or a series of determinative (original) texts.
While some scholars posit the existence of an original text of the biblical books
from which all or most known texts derived, others reject this assumption. The
latter approach can also be formulated positively as referring to the existence of
pristine texts that apparently had equal status. There seems to be no room for an
intermediary position between these two views, but the presumably differing
development of the various biblical books may necessitate different hypotheses
for different books.
a. Multiple Pristine Texts

The assumption of multiple pristine texts was developed as an
alternative to the theory of an original text. However, scholars never
formulated clearly the nature of these texts and their relation to the
development stages of the biblical books. The assumption of pristine
texts involves the further assumption that all/ several early texts were of
equal authority. The most detailed descriptions of this view are found
19 In discussing the topic of the Urtext, scholars often confuse the question of the original
text of the Bible with that of the original text of m. However, m is but one witness of the
biblical text, and its original form was not identical to the original text of the Bible as a
whole.
164
apud Greenberg* and Walters*, both taking specific biblical units as their
point of departure (Ezekiel, 1 Sarnuell).
Kahle*, especially 1951, suggested a multiplicity of pristine texts for m,
and lll., and also, for the biblical text as a whole. - pp. 172-3. He described the
various textual witnesses as parallel "vulgar texts."
Barthelemy* posited a number of undefined "original texts" that lay beyond
the sphere of textual criticism as he defined it. However, he did not describe the
relation between these early texts, which need to be analyzed by literary analysis.
Cashen-Gottstein* 1957 claimed that if any two readings cannot be
described as primary as opposed to secondary, or original as opposed to corrupt,
both of them should be considered to be alternative and original readings.
Cashen-Gottstein drew an analogy between procedures in linguistic reconstruction and the establishing of the text of the Bible.
Three other scholars rejected the assumption of an original text on the basis
of textual data. Basing himself upon the occurrence of synonymous readings as
variants in textual witnesses, Talman* 2010 (1961) claimed that such pairs as ; II
=')::l (both: "hand"),
II
(both: "land") reflect components that are equally
early and original. In his view, neither one should be preferred to the other. - pp.
257-8, 268. He expanded this claim in reference to additional groups of readings
in his study "Old Testament Text" (1970). Likewise, Greenberg*, basing himself
upon a comparison of details in !11
of Ezekiel, suggested that various details
in both texts are equally valid in the context ("alternative messages, each with its
own validity ... correlations between divergences within each version" [p. 140]).
In Greenberg's view, these details are equally original. Similarly, Walters* tried to
show that in 1 Samuel 1, !11 and
reflect two parallel stories differing slightly
from each other. 20
Reaction: Although it cannot be denied that many readings are parallel,
equally valid or appropriate in the context, the conclusion drawn from them by
these scholars does not necessarily follow. Occasional readings, powerful as they
may be, should not be invoked, since the evidence may be misleading.2 1 Even if
one is unable to decide between two or more readings, the possibility that one of
them was nevertheless original and that the other(s) was (were) secondary cannot
be rejected. One's inability to decide between different readings should not be
confused with the question of the original form of the biblical text. The bottom
line of this argumentation is that even synonymous variants need to be
evaluated, necessarily with little success.
In addition to the arguments mentioned above, the following general
arguments against the theory of different pristine texts should also be considered.
The relation between the biblical composition and the presumed pristine
parallel texts has not been addressed in the descriptions by the aforementioned
20 These three views together with that of Goshen-Gottstein* pertain to details in the
theory of an original text, and therefore for those who accept these views they provide a
form of guidance for the textual praxis even though they refer to a very small number
of instances. For example, Hendel, "Prologue," 346 accepts the notion of synonymous
readings for the OHB+ edition and therefore does not decide on the preference of one of
a pair of such readings.
21 See the analysis of 1 Sam 1:23 on p. 256.
165
scholars. Probably the proponents of this view support a general idea that could
perhaps be called literary cycles, such as the Isaiah cycle or the Samuel cycle that
were circulated in parallel and different formulations. While such a view is
possible or likely at the level of oral transmission ..... Coote*, written parallel
transmission is difficult to envisage and, in any event, the preserved manuscripts
do not support this idea.
The majority of the differences between the textual witnesses, that is,
omissions, additions, and changes, may be explained as genetic differences
deriving from linear developments ...... pp. 166, 267. This pertains also to the great
majority of the large-scale differences analyzed in ch. 7B that in our view were
created in a linear way and not as parallel texts. We do not exclude the possibility
that parallel texts existed, but such an assumption is not supported by evidence.
in Proverbs and
Possible exceptions are the differences between !TI+ and
Exodus 35-40 ..... ch. 7B5, 14,22 but our inability to explain the relation between
these texts should not be taken as proof of their parallel existence at one time.
Models devised for other literary compositions should not be invoked, since
each literature may have developed differently.23
In sum, there is no positive manuscript support for alternative pristine texts.
b. An Original Text or a Series of Determinative (Original) Texts
The hypothesis concerning the existence of an original text, accepted by

most scholars, has been formulated in different ways. We disregard the
ipsissima verba of the biblical authors and oral formulations of the biblical
books since both are beyond our evidence. Rather, we focus on the
written text or edition (or a number of consecutive editions) that
contained the finished literary product (or one of its earlier stages) that
stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. This
formulation gives a certain twist to the assumption of an original text as
often described in the scholarly literature. Our definition does not refer
to the original text in the usual sense of the word, since the copy
described here as the final literary product could have been preceded by
earlier literary crystallizations. Reconstructing elements of this copy (or
copies) is one of the aims of textual scholars, although the discussion is
22 The relation between
!H+
of Joshua is a special case since both texts, as well as
4QJosh 3 , reflect early as well as late elements. --+ ch. 782, 13
23 Kahle* 1951 invoked the model of the Targumim. Other models that have been invoked
are Rabbinic literature and Second Temple prayers. For the latter, see J. Heinemann,
Prayer in the Period of the Tanna 'im and tlte Am mora 'im: Its Nature and Its Patterns (2nd ed.;
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1966) 29-51 (Heb. with Eng. summ.). Akkadian texts known in
many copies do not provide viable parallels since the extant multiple editions and
copies derived from a single Urtext. See Cogan, "Assyriological Perspective" and Tigay
(for both: ..... p. 285, n. 6). Likewise, H.omer's Iliad and Odyssey, in spite of their
complicated textual transmission, probably derived from a single source. See R. Janko,
The Iliad: A Commentary, Volume IV: Books 13-16 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992) 29.
166
constantly plagued by the difficulty of defining the literary stages. There

is no evidence for the existence of the model of an original text because of
the late date of our manuscripts, even the ones from the Judean Desert.24
The main arguments in favor of this assumption are as follows.
In terms of logic and plausibility, the simplest assumption is that the writing
or editing of the biblical books was completed at some stage, particularly so in
the case of late books ascribed to a single author, such as Qoheleth. At the end of
this process, each biblical book was extant in the form of a single textual unit. The
biblical books are literary creations; literary unity and the mind, logic, and style
of individual authors are often visible. These characteristics point to the
assumption of a composition that was finalized.
The improbability of the alternative theory of pristine texts forms an
argument in favor of the original text. -+ a
Linear development of the biblical books is a major element in our analysis
of the early history of the biblical text. -+ p. 165. Most of the biblical books were
not written by one person nor at one particular time, but rather over many
generations.-+ ch. 7A and the table in Deist, Witnesses, 11-16. This assumption
applies especially to the books that underwent literary processes such as the Dtr+
revisions of Joshua-Kings and the different literary stages in the development of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Since the process of literary development was long, one
needs to decide which, if any, of the final stages in the presumed literary
development of the book should be considered determinative for textual
criticism. This problem, discussed already by Kittel*, has become more acute in
light of the preservation in textual witnesses of sections of early formulations that
were circulated at the time. -+ ch. 7
A major complication for any theory is the assumption that the

textual transmission was operative before the completion of the final
literary stage as defined in c. These earlier stages were not "drafts," but
each literary stage was considered final and then released, in modern
parlance. Literary activity continued all the time until the 1st century cE; it
did not cease with the acceptance of the canonical status of the protoMasoretic text, since the OG and some Qumran scrolls attest to early
24 Evidence is lacking for the hypothetical first stage of the textual transmission, with the
exception of 4QDanc,e, whose presumed date, 125-100 BCE, is close to that of the last
stage of the composition of the book, approximately 165 BCE. A second exception is the
I!) translation of the late biblical books-from the 2"d century BCE-that is closer to the
time of their composition than are many Hebrew texts from Qumran. However, taking
into consideration the great gap in time between these Qumran texts and I!) on the one
hand and the time of composition of most biblical books on the other, the availability of
these texts does not diminish the divergence significantly. Since the centuries preceding
the extant evidence presumably were marked by great textual fluidity, all statements
about the pristine state of the biblical text must necessarily remain hypothetical. The
textual diversity visible in the Qumran evidence from the 3'd century BCE onwards is
probably not representative of the textual situation in earlier periods, when the text
must have been much more fluid.
167
compositions that rewrote the proto-MT text or a similar text. - ch. 7B7,
15,18,23
c. Definition of the Original (Determinative) Text(s)
At the end of the composition process of a biblical book stood a text that
was finished at a literary level and subsequently was considered
authoritative, even if only by a limited group of people. Scribal activity
preceding the completion of the literary composition is disregarded in
the textual analysis (a), while literary activity preceding that stage is not.
Indeed, earlier compositional stages that were intended to be disregarded by each subsequent literary reviser, could not be eradicated (b). This
assumption is complicated since each of these compositional stages was
accepted as authoritative when it was produced, as recognized by their
preservation in some textual sources. In these cases, the textual evidence
does not point to a single "original" text, but a series of subsequent
authoritative texts produced by the same or different authors. Each of
these stages may be considered a type of original text. As far as we know,
no literary rewriting took place in simple types of transmission as
evidenced in the case of some individual Psalms, allowing us to aim for a
single "original" text. The assumption of parallel pristine texts provides a
possible alternative model, but at present it is not supported by textual
evidence.
The finished composition stood at the beginning of a process of
copying and textual transmission, creating genetic variants in a linear
way (c). We suggest that textual criticism keeps in mind the original text
as defined here 25 or a series (d) of determinative (original) texts (e). This
formulation involves the understanding that the original text(s)
remain(s) an evasive entity that cannot be reconstructed, although each
assumed scribal error requires the determination of original/ secondary
status. This model reflects the understanding that some textual witnesses
evidence vestiges of a chain of literary activity. - ch. 7. The original
text(s) as described here existed in a written unvocalized form (f). If ever
found, that (those) text(s) would probably contain errors and inconsistencies (g).
Remarks
(a) At all stages of the growth of the biblical composition, parts of the book
were committed to writing. A well-known example is Baruch's writing of an
25 Thus already G.F. Moore in Haupt, Critical Edition, Part 7, The Book of fudges (1900) 23:
"The task of the textual critic is not to restore the text of the sources, nor even of some
earlier state of the composite work, but only the form in which it left the hand of the last
redactor."
168
initial scroll of Jeremiah's prophecies, and the prophet's subsequent dictating of a

second scroll to Baruch (Jer 36:32). These and all other stages that have not been
preserved are beyond the concern of textual criticism. Thus, the activity of the
Chronicler as a scribe copying from scrolls such as Samuel and Kings and as an
author changing his Vorlage, are beyond the area analyzed by textual critics.
(b) Some biblical books, such as Jeremiah, reached a final state more than
once, not just in m but also at an earlier stage, as attested by some textual
evidence. Thus, at an early stage, when the edition containing the short text of
4QJerb,d and ("edition I") was completed, it was considered authoritative and
was circulated in ancient Israel. -+ ch. 7Bl. Otherwise, that edition would not
have been made the basis for at a later period, and would not have found its
way to Qumran. By the same token, the early text of Joshua, which was at the
base
and partly reflected in 4QJosha-+ ch. 7B2, 13, must have been considered
authoritative. At a later time, the editions that are now contained in m also
texts of Ezekiel
became authoritative. The same thinking pertains to the
and 1 Samuel 16-18, which probably preceded the later editions of m...... ch. 7B3,
4a. Since the early crystallizations could not be eradicated, the Qumran
manuscripts include both 4QJera,c (= m), which probably had the imprimatur of
the Jerusalem spiritual center, and 4QJerb,d
lacked such an imprimatur when they were taken to Qumran.
(c) Scribal transmission creates variants that are both genetic and non-genetic.
-+ ch. Sc. The recognition of these readings plays an important role in our
definitions. A reading described as genetic may have developed-by change,
omission, addition, or inversion-from another reading that may, or may not, be
known today. Even though the direction of the development of the readings is
often not clear, in such cases it is nevertheless described as linear (primary and
secondary) as long as the alternative model cannot be supported. Non-genetic
readings are those that may have been parallel, synonymous+, or alternative but,
as argued in a, the parallel status of these readings is often misleading.
Nevertheless, a parallel reading may have been created linearly from another
one, but scholars have no means of determining originality.
The acceptance of an original text model is based on the admittedly subjective
understanding that the great majority of the readings created in the course of
textual transmission reflect a genetic relation.-+ pp. 221-62
(d) The assumption of a series of consecutive determinative (original) editions
in some biblical books necessitates that the texts should not be subjected to textcritical procedures. At the same time, these texts also reflect exponents of scribal
activity that created scribal mistakes and other secondary readings that need to
be evaluated with textual procedures.-+ ch. 6
(e) We use the term "determinative texts," since the plural "original texts" is
misleading. These texts are determinative for the procedure of textual criticism.
Realizing that the original text is far removed and can never be reconstructed,
several scholars aim for the reconstruction of a relatively late form in the
development of the biblical text. 26 The available Qumran evidence from c. 250
26 The 4'h to 3'd centuries BCE are mentioned in this context by Kittel*, 38 and T. Jansma,
Inquiry into the Hebrew Text and the Ancient Versions of Zechariah IX-XIV (Leiden: Brill,
1949) 1, while Wiirthwein, Text, 116 and Noth, Old Testament World, 359 referred to the
4'h century. More in general, Barthelemy, Interim Report, vi-vii aims at "the 'earliest
169
to 70 CE enables us to draw closer to this period ..... pp. 95-8, but had we taken
this course, we would have been laboring under a misconception, since the
Judean Desert scrolls reflect a relatively late stage in the textual development. For
these reasons it is preferable to adhere to an abstract, albeit remote, aim. Even if
the accomplishment of this goal cannot be examined, it would at least appear to
be correct on a theoretical level, and must therefore be adhered to. One of our
goals is to formulate arguments about the compatibility of readings in the context
of the biblical books, referring to such parameters as the language and style of the
book ..... p. 280, and for that purpose we must try to get back to the original
composition while realizing that the sources of our information are limited.
(f) Undoubtedly, the intention was for the consonants of the "original" text(s)
to be read in a certain way, but the reconstruction of that reading (vocalization) is
equally as hypothetical as that of the consonants.
(g) The wish of some scholars to create a perfect text is unrealistic because the
presumed original text would have contained mistakes and illogical elements.
BCE
C. Development of the Biblical Text

W.F. Albright, "New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible," BASOR 140 (1955)
27-33; Chiesa, "Appunti" (1990); id., "Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Old Testament," in Madrid Qumran Congress (1992) 257-72; S. White Crawford, Rewriting
Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, Ml/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008); F.M.
Cross, "The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text," IE]
16 (1966) 81-95; id., "Evolution" (1976); Debe), "Variant Literary Editions"; G. Gerleman,
Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1948); R. Cordis, "Prolegomenon" to
the reprinting of id., Biblical Text, xi-lvi; Goshen-Gottstein, "Biblical Manuscripts"; R.S.
Hendel, "Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible after Qumran," The
Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T.H. Lim & J.J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010) 281-302; A.F.J. Klijn, "A Library of Scriptures in Jerusalem?" Studia
Codicologica 124 = TU 124 (1977) 263-72; Konig, Eil1leitung, 14-98; Lange, "Plurality" (2010);
Lieberman, Hellenism, 20-27; Olshausen, Psalmen, 17-22; Schenker, "Multiplicite" (2007);
Talmon, "Old Testament Text" (1970); id., "tn"k, nws/1," EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute,
1982) 8.621-41; van der Toorn, Scribal Culture; Tov, HB, GB, and Qumran (2008) 171-88; id.,
"Coincidental Textual Nature" (2010); Ulrich, DSS (1999) 99-120; id., "Qualitative
Assessment" (2007); id., "Methodological 'Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in
First Century Judaism," in Grossman, Rediscovering (2010) 145--61; Wegner, Textual
Criticism, 66-70; van der Woude, "Piuriformity and Uniformity."
The analysis of the development of the biblical text focuses on (1) textual
theories, (2) the assumption of the stabilization of the biblical text, and (3)
a new description.
1. Textual Theories
Ideally, a description of the development of the biblical text is based on

evidence relating to textual witnes.ses and the relation between them.
attested text' (attested either directly or indirectly)," reflecting the second phase in the
development of the text.
170
However, too often, scholars take abstract assumptions and preconceived

ideas unrelated to Scripture texts as their point of departure. The
following analysis describes the textual theories that have been launched
to describe the development of the biblical text. 27 These theories are of
interest to the historian, but with the exception of the discussion of
the I an original text as discussed in section B above and the "variant
literary editions" (p. 174), they contribute little to the understanding of
the history of the biblical text or of the textual praxis (- ch. 5 and 6).
Nevertheless, the student of the biblical text needs to be aware of the
issues involved.- Debe!*
Textual theories involve preconceived ideas; they find acceptance by all
scholars, and certainly this book is not free o(them. Positions taken with regard
to the composition of the biblical books and their copying, the assumption of an
original text, and the development of textual traditions have all been influenced
by abstract presuppositions. This approach comes to light in the views of those
scholars who describe the development of different texts in a similar way, even
though each text probably developed according to different internal dynamics. -+
p. 171 (de Lagarde) and 172 (Kahle)
The reader will find only partial answers to the questions relating to the
development of the biblical text in the following review, for scholars usually
referred only to some aspects of the development of the text, even though they
themselves often thought that their views pertained to all aspects. A posteriori,
one could say that some opinions were correct for their time only, since the
discoveries of texts from the Judean Desert, which completely altered the face of
research, were not known at the time. Furthermore, many scholars described the
history of the research schematically in terms of a thesis (usually: the views of de
Lagarde), antithesis (usually: the views of Kahle), and occasionally, a synthesis.
However, on closer examination of the details, such a schematic presentation is
found to be untenable.
The following description pertains to the biblical text in its entirety and it
should be remembered that m is only one component of the complete picture.
Scholars did not always make a clear distinction between these two levels, as can
be seen, for example, from their approach to the view of Rosenmiiller ..... below
(1), which in fact pertaihs only tom.
(1) The first theoretical statements about the development of the biblical text
were by Eichhorn (1781 and later), 28 Glassius, Phi/alogia (1795), and Rosenmiiller,
Handbuch (1797) 1.244. In modern research, Rosenmiiller is often credited with the
priority rights for this view, but Chiesa* 1990 has shown that he was actually
preceded by Eichhorn. 29 Both scholars dealt solely with the medieval
manuscripts of m, and not with the biblical text as a whole. On seeing that these
manuscripts agree even in the minutest details, these scholars determined that all
27 See my study "The Relevance of Textual Theories for the Praxis of Textual Criticism,"
forthcoming.
28 Eichhorn, Einleitung, 129 (1 ''edition), and more clearly in the 2"d edition, 11 t 113, 203.
29 See further Konig*, Ein/eitung, 88; Goshen-Gottstein*; Talmon* 1970; Chiesa* 1992.
C: Development of the Biblical Text
171
manuscripts of m reflect one textual "recension," which was different from the
"recension"
This view remains valid even today, except that one should
substitute recension with a term that is less committing, such as group or family .
...... pp. 158--60. Beyond Eichhorn (...... n. 28), Rosenmi.iller claimed that all Hebrew
manuscripts derived from "one source." ...... p. 170
(2) In concise, abstract terms, de Lagarde proposed that all manuscripts of m
derived from one source, which served as the archetype of what he called the
"recension" of m.3 The brief, pertinent formulations of de Lagarde, though
having great influence, did not break new ground since they continued the line of
thought of Eichhorn, Rosenmi.iller (p. 170), and Olshausen* in their research on
m, and of K. Lachmann in the field of the New Testament. 31 De Lagarde resorted
principally to abstract reasoning with regard to textual development but also
added a concrete argument pertaining to m. In his opinion, the identical
transmission of even small details, such as the extraordinary points+ in all
manuscripts of m, proves that they were all copied from one source (the
presumed archetype of m). ...... p. 52. This claim was applied to the manuscripts of
all of which, in his opinion, also derived from one archetype. Moreover, de
Lagarde claimed that it was possible to reconstruct the original form of the
biblical text from the reconstructed first copies (hyparchetypes) of m and
This
original text was not described by him; later it was depicted in general terms by
Buhl, who claimed that it had authoritative status.32
This proposition became known as the Urtext theory of de Lagarde. One
should note that de Lagarde's statements were very succinct and that more than
what he actually said was attributed to him, partly due to a confusion of his
views with those of Rosenmiiller (...... p. 170) and others, who ascribed all the
manuscripts of m to one recension.
De Lagarde's intuitive views have been accepted by many scholars; our
argumentation in section B is also close to de Lagarde's views. Similarly, his view
that the manuscripts
derived from one source is generally accepted ....... p. 131.
Other scholars must have made similar remarks. However, it was the fame as
well as systematic thinking of de Lagarde, who formulated the first lucid
formulations about the original text of the Bible, which caused later generations
to link this view with his name.
A parallel line of thinking develtlped with regard to the concept of the
originality or priority of individual readings. Cappellus (1650) was the first
sometimes reflected
scholar to indicate that details in the versions, esf:ecially
the "autograph"+ of a biblical book better than m. 3 In 1657, B. Walton34 asserted
that only one of two alternative readings found in different manuscripts could be
30 Seen. 2 and further: Mittheilungen (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1884) I.19-26.
31 On the relation between the views of these scholars, see especially Cashen-Gottstein*
and Chiesa* 1990-1992.
32 F. Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament (trans. J. Macpherson; Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1892) 256.
33 Cappellus, Critica Sacra (ed. 1650) 384-5; (ed. 1775-[1786)) 926-7 and passim.
34 Walton, Prolegomena, 1.36-7 (republished by Wrangham, Prolegomena, 1.332-6 [333))
arguing against Morinus, Exerc., LVI xii, 4, 5 (pp. 153-4 in the 2nd ed.) who suggested in
1633 (2"d ed., 1660) that both readings could have been original.
172
originai. 35 At that early stage of scholarship, the assessment of readings did not
immediately create models of a systematic comparison of m and 1.1). Nevertheless,
some isolated observations were made on this issue at a later stage. Thus,
Eichhorn's* influential Einleitung (1780-1783) spoke of the "original external shape
of the books of the Old Testament" (title of vol. I, ch. II, 1), but his analysis did
not involve a discussion of the original text of the Bible as a whole. Likewise,
Glassius, Phi/alogia (1795) II.1.235 spoke explicitly about the "reconstruction of
the text of the Old Testament such as existed before the time of the Masoretes,
that is, such as came from the hands of the authors." According to Glassius, not
only inner-biblical parallels should be used in the reconstruction of this original
text, but also the ancient versions.
(3) After de Lagarde promulgated his theory on the existence of an original
text of the biblical books, additional scholars expressed their view either for or
against this suggestion. Several scholars questioned de Lagarde's assumption
that a single copy once existed, named Urtext or Urschrift. 36 Among them, Kahle*
dealt with the original form of both the individual textual witnesses and the
biblical text in its entirety. In his opinion, none of these textual witnesses were
created in a single act, but rather through a process of editing and revising.
Basing himself, on the one hand, on the internal differences between the
medieval manuscripts of m and, on the other hand, on the variants contained in
the Cairo Genizah+ texts and the biblical quotations in the Talmud -+ pp. 33-4,
Kahle stressed, against de Lagarde, the difficulty in assuming one original text
form. Similarly, he claimed that 1.1) did not originate in a single act of translation,
but rather that various translations were originally attempted; only at a later
stage were they revised into the form now known to us through the uncial
manuscripts of this translation. -+ p. 133. With regard to the Hebrew Bible in its
entirety, Kahle did not reject the assumption of one original text, but emphasized
that the textual sources known to us were created from an intermediary source
that he originally (1915) named Vulgartext ("vulgar" text), and later (1951)
referred to in the plural as Vulgiirtexte, that is, texts created to facilitate the
reading.37 He described w., 1.1) and also m as such texts, although, in his opinion,
the latter passed through a stage of refinement at the end of the 1st century CE.
According to Kahle, these texts developed from initial textual plurality into a
unity, whereas de Lagarde had maintained that the unity preceded the textual
plurality. Kahle's approach is in many aspects opposed to that of de Lagarde, but
one cannot appropriately define the differences between them, since de Lagarde's
exposition was very concise and the textual information on which Kahle based
his opinions was not known at the time of de Lagarde.
The following points may be raised against Kahle:
35 At that time, the comparison of m and was usually colored by Catholic-Protestant
polemics.
36 Geiger, Urschrift, and Wellhausen, Samuel, 25 speak of an "Urschrift," while most other
scholars speak of an "Urtext." Scholars continue to use these German terms since the
first scholars to deal with this abstract question were Germans.
37 In addition to Kahle* 1915 and 1951, see also his The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1947; 2"d ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 1959; German ed.: Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1962).
173
Although there were undoubtedly texts that facilitated reading ("vulgar"

texts in Kahle's terminology) ..... p. 184, these did not have the central status that
Kahle attributed to them, and there is also no proof of their early date as Kahle
had supposed.
Kahle's claim that
and 1Qisab were "vulgar" texts is unfounded .
Even in Kahle's time there was no justification for his claim that m was a text
that had been edited at a later period; how much more so is this the case
following the discovery at Qumran of many proto-Masoretic and m-like texts
from the 3'd century BCE onward, among which are those written in the paleoHebrew script+ that were apparently based on even more ancient texts.
Although m, like any other text, contains deliberate changes, there is no
reason to assume that it was created by textual revision.
The texts from the Cairo Genizah+, from which Kahle drew his theory of
textual multiplicity, are late and do not pertain to the situation in the Second
Temple period, much less the First Temple period.
Those who accepted the rather extreme opinions of Kahle are few in number
..... especially Gerleman* and A. Sperber. The latter scholar reduced the textual
multiplicity to two principal traditions: northern (m and
and southern (m and
Sperber, Grammar collected internal differences both within the m group
(parallel texts, Ketib-Qere+, etc.) and between certain manuscripts
as well as
between m on the one hand and lll and the transliterations+ in the Greek and
Latin traditions on the other.
Various scholars accepted from Kahle's writings the concept of "vulgar" texts,
albeit with certain changes. Nyberg, "Problem"; Lieberman, Hellenism, 20-27;
Gerleman*; Greenberg, "Stabilization" (1956); and Kutscher, Language, 77-89
("vernacular and model texts") posited in their descriptions the "careful"
tradition of m alongside "vulgar" texts. The scribes of these "vulgar" texts (e.g.
1Qlsaa and m) approached the biblical text in a free manner and inserted changes
of various kinds, including orthography+ ...... p. 184
(4) A new textual theory developed mainly in the United States in the wake of
a brief study by Albright*, according to which all Hebrew textual witnesses
represent three different groups, which were at first described as "recensions"
and later as "families." 39 These groups, which developed during the 5th to 3'ct
centuries BCE, were linked to particular areas: Babylon (m), Palestine (m in the
Torah, m of Chronicles, several Qumran texts), and Egypt (the Hebrew Vorlage of
This view was developed in particular in the studies of Cross* ...... latest
formulations in ALQ 3 (1995) 177-83 and id., "Fixation" (1998)
The principal argument in favor of this theory posits that texts developed in
different ways in the locations in which they were preserved and I or copied. 40
The Palestinian recension is held to be expansionistic and full of glosses and
38 A. Sperber, Septuagi11ta-Probleme (Texte und Untersuchungen zur vormasoretischen
Grammatik des Hebraischen; BWANT 3,13; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929); id., "New
Testament and Septuagint," JBL 59 (1940) 193-293.
39 A similar view had been expressed previously by Wiener, but his views received little
attention: H.M. Wiener, "The Pentateuchal Text: A Reply to Dr. Skinner," BSac 71 (1914)
218--68 (221 ).
40 In addition, Albright* mentioned a few assumed Egyptian characteristics of the Hebrew
Vorlage of II} as well as some "Babylonian features" of !H.
174
harmonizing additions (cf. the features of lll [pp. 82-3]), the Egyptian recension is
considered to be full, and the Babylonian recension is conservative and short.
McCarter, Textual Criticism, 87-94 provides the most detailed presentation of this
theory.
Reactions:
The textual characterization is too general and cannot be substantiated. Only
the description of the Palestinian group is seemingly appropriate, but harmonizing pluses characterize not only lll-+ p. 82, but even more so
...... p. 136
does not reflect any proven Egyptian characteristics ...... p. 131
The discovery of Hebrew texts at Qumran such as 4QJerb,d, which are very
close
contradicts the theory
as an Egyptian local text. ..... pp. 108-9
The presence in Qumran of texts representing three presumed local groups
contradicts the logic of a theory of local texts.
(5) Ulrich* 1999 suggested that the biblical books once circulated as "variant
literary editions," named "successive editions" in id., 2007, 148. While this view
explains important aspects of the development of Hebrew Scripture ..... p. 182, it is
not a textual theory, although it is often presented as such, also by Ulrich* 1999
and 2010, 159. For a discussion, see Debe!* and Lange* 2010, 46.
2. The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture

Albrektson, Text, 47-62 (2010 [1978)); Cross, "Fixation" (1998); Geiger, Urschrift; Greenberg,
"Stabilization" (1956); id., "Ancient Versions" (1978); S. Kreuzer, "Von der Vielfalt zur
Einheitlichkeit: Wie kam es zur Vorherrschaft des masoretischen Textes?" in Horizonte
biblischer Texte: Festschrift fUr josef M. Oesch zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. A. Vonach & G. Fischer;
OBO 196; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003) 117-29; Lange, 'They Confirmed" (2009); M.
Saebo, "From Pluriformity to Uniformity, Some Remarks on the Emergence of the Massoretic Text, with Special Reference to Its Theological Significance," ASTl11 (1977-1978) 127-37;
M.Z. Segal, "The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible," ]BL 72
(1953) 35--47; J. Trebolle-Barrera, "Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for
Non-Standard and Parabiblical Texts," in Historical Context, 89-106; E. Ulrich, "Methodological Reflections" (2010) (-+ p. 169); van der Woude, "Pluriformity and Uniformity";
Young, "Stabilization" (2002).
Before analyzing the history of the biblical text in 3, we turn to its

possible stabilization and the so-called victory of the proto-Masoretic
text, usually referred to in such surveys. This topic is examined here for
the Scripture text as a whole, while the m-group is analyzed separately
on pp. 27-36 and 176.41
After several centuries of textual plurality, a period of uniformity and
stability can be discerned within Judaism at the end of the 1st century CE.
At that time, the Qumran texts were hidden in the caves, and w. and IB,
both deviating much from m, were cherished by religious groups that
were no longer considered Jewish. Accordingly, at the end of the 1st
41 Scholars often disregard this distinction, transferring concepts in the development of m
to Scripture as a whole. The term "myth" features in the title of this paragraph, since no
claim can be made for the stabilization of Scripture as a whole, but only form.-+ p. 176
175
century CE the Hebrew and translated texts used within Judaism only
reflect m. This situation is usually explained as reflecting a conscious
effort to stabilize the Scripture text, and as the creation of a standard text
for Palestine as a whole. In this context, the terms stabilization and
standardization are often used. However, textual stability (that is, when
all sources use the same text) should not be confused with stabilization,
that is, an organized attempt to create a stable text, since stability may
have been caused by a number of factors. Standardization involves a
conscious process, since it reflects an attempt to impose a text on a
certain region or the country as a whole. An alternative explanation for
the evidence could be the assumption of historical coincidence. For
example, one could claim-as we do-that after the destruction of the
Temple and with the splitting off from Judaism of the Samaritans and
Christians, m was the only text surviving within Judaism from a previous
plurality. This situation could easily create the illusion of stability that
resulted from stabilization that was created by the authorities.
Prior to the discoveries in the Judean Desert, many scholars thought in terms
of textual stabilization or standardization that took place at the end of the pt
century CE. After all, before 1947 scholars already knew that at that time only m
texts were circulating among Jews and that the scribes of m transmitted that text
with extreme care. I do not know when these concepts first appeared in the
literature, but they can be traced back to at least the end of the 19th century. 42
In modern times, several scholars likewise have expressed an opinion about
conscious textual processes. Thus Childs, Introduction, 103-6 speaks much about
the "pre-stabilization period," as if a stabilization process separated early
multiformity from subsequent stabilization. Roberts, OTTV, 29 and Lange* 2009
speak about the standardization of the text and the third chapter of Ap-Thomas,
Primer is named "Vocalization and Standardization." Barthelemy speaks of
"stabilisation consonnantique" having taken place towards the end of the pt
century CE. 43 Albrektson* 2010 [1978] and Trebolle Barrera* 2000 speak about the
emergence of a standard text, while the titles of studies by Greenberg* 1956 and
Young* 2002 likewise include the te.rm stabilization. 44 Cross speaks of the "fixing
of the official text," 45 and this term is also dominant in another of his studies,
"Fixation" (1998). Talmon, "Old Testament Text," 199 speaks about "standardized texts" used by "the socio-religious communities which perpetuated them."
Reactions. We now review the arguments used in favor of the assumption of

the stabilization I standardization of the biblical text. In the writing of most
42 Ginsburg, Introduction (1897) 408 ("copies of these authorised Scriptures were deposited
in the Court of the Temple"); P. Kahle, "Der Konsonantentext" in H. Bauer & P.
Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebriiischen Sprache des Alte11 Testaments (Halle:
Niemeyer, 1922; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965) 73 ("ein einheitlicher Bibeltext").
43 Barthelemy, Critique textue/le (1992) xcviii, cxiii, and passim.
44 See also Greenberg," Ancient Versions," 141.
45 F.M. Cross in Cross-Talmon*, QHBT, 177-95 (186). Likewise: "the publication of an
official text" (187); "promulgation of the official text and the demise of rival texts" (188).
176
scholars quoted above, there is no clarity regarding which text or texts were
stabilized. The evidence for this period is usually presented as pertaining to the
biblical text as a whole while, in our view, it is only relevant to m as argued
below.
Several scholars suggest a process of stabilization I standardization without
offering any argument. 4
The precise exegesis by R. Aqiba and others, which explained every letter in
the Bible, was noted as requiring a stabilized text. 47 It is indeed logical for one to
base one's exegesis on the finesses of the biblical text only if everyone accepts the
same text. However, this type of exegesis pertained to m only, and accordingly
the limited text base did not require that the text be the standard for the whole
country. 48
According to several scholars, the tradition of the three scrolls found in the
Temple Court (y. Ta 'an. 4.68a) points to the creation of an official standard copy
that was the basis for a process of standardization of the biblical text. 49
However, this tradition could point at most to the creation of m through an
eclectic process, but even that assumption is problematic. This Talmudic tradition
supposedly records the limiting of the differences between three specific texts by
comparing their readings in each individual instance of disagreement. At the end
of this process of comparison, presumably a new copy was created that contained
the majority readings of these scrolls (the agreement of two sources against the
third one). Although such an activity seems to be implied by the baraita quoted
below, the procedures followed are unclear and therefore the story itself is not
trustworthy as a source for assuming this process. 50 In the story of the three
scrolls, the majority reading reflects m.
Three scrolls of the Law were found in the Temple Court. These were
the ma'on ("dwelling") scroll, the za<{l.tu.te ("little ones") scroll, and the
hy scroll. In one of these scrolls they found written, "The eternal God
is (your) dwelling place ()1ll9, rna 'on)" (Deut 33:27). And in two of the
scrolls it was written, "The eternal God is (your) dwelling place
(m" onah,
= m)." They adopted the reading found in the two and
discarded the other. In one of them they found written, "He sent the
little ones (za <{l.tu.te) of the sons of Israel" (Exod 24:5). And in two it
was written, "He sent young men (na <{Ire = !lt) of the sons of Israel."
They adopted the reading found in the two and discarded the other.
In one of them they found written M1i1, hw [m: M1;:!] nine times, and in
two, they found it written M'i1, hy , eleven times. They adopted the
reading found in the two and discarded the other (y. Ta 'an. 4.68a; Sof.
46 Eissfeldt, Introduction, 684; Wilrthwein, Text (English), 13.
47 Kahle, "Der Konsonantentext," 74; Roberts, OTTV, 29; N.M. Sarna, "Bible," Encfud
Uerusalem: Mac-Millan, 1971) 4.835; Greenberg, "Stabilization," 166.
48 Thus Albrektson, Text, 54 who asserted that this type of exegesis could have been
applied to a single text in a limited environment.
49 Kahle, "Der Konsonantentext," 74; Roberts, OITV, 26; Lieberman, Hellenism, 21-2;
Lange, "They Confirmed," 75-6.
50 Van Seters, Edited Bible, 65-70 likewise criticized the relevance of this tradition for the
assumed stabilization of the biblical text.
177
6.4 probably has a better version: "In one

was written eleven
times, and in two
written eleven times."). 51
It is often claimed that at the end of the pt century CE important decisions
were reached at an official meeting devoted to the authoritative status of the
twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible. In this context, various scholars
mentioned a meeting or council that was held at Jabneh, ]amnia, between 75 and
117 CE. However, we possess no evidence for such an official meeting. In the
ancient texts, we only find references to a beth din, "law court," a metibta,
"academy," a yeshivah, and a beth midrash ("school" or "college") at Jabneh, and
not a convention or counci1. 52 According to Leiman, 53 the only decision reached
at Jabneh was that "the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean"
(m. Yad. 3.5), that is, these books were given authoritative status. No decision was
taken on the authoritative (canonical) status of all of the biblical books and there
is no evidence regarding whether the activities of the rabbis at Jabneh had any
influence on the status of the text during that period.
According to some scholars, the negative influence of the destruction of the
Torah texts in Maccabean times (1 Mace 1:56-58) brought about a process of
stabilization preceded by the writing of new scrolls (2 Mace 2:14-15). 54 However,
this hypothesis remains unproven. For one thing, there must have been other
Torah texts besides those in the Temple, and therefore even after the burning of
the Temple scrolls, others must have remained intact.
Basing themselves on the pre-Christian revisions of IS3 (the OG+) according to
the proto-Masoretic text, such as in 8HevXII gr -+ p. 143, van der Woude* 161,
Kreuzer*, and Lange* 2009, 56-60 surmised that the revisional activity showed
that the proto-Masoretic text was standard at that early stage. However, this type
of revision only shows that the same influential group that was behind the protoMasoretic text was also behind the revision of the Greek Bible. This group
desired the proto-Masoretic text to be as central in Greek as in Hebrew, and its
activity does not point to stabilization of the Scripture text in general.
Grammarians who stabilized the transmission of Greek texts in Alexandria
may have influenced the transmission of the biblical text in Palestine. 55 This
argument, pertaining only to m, was countered by Albrektson*, Text, 52, who
claimed that the influence of the Alexandrian grammarians was limited to scribal
procedures and terminology.
Some scholars suggested that several supralinear corrections and linear
erasures in the Qumran scrolls evidence a correction towards m or !SJ, but the
evidence is not very strong. -+ pp. 202-3. Milik and Lange presented the evidence
in SQDeut as corrections towards the Hebrew base of
Likewise, according to
51 See pp. 30-31. For a thorough analysis of this tradition, see Talman, Text, 329--46.
52 See J.P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean by Jabneh?" JBR 32 (1964) 125-32.
53 S.Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence
(Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 47; Hamden, CT:
Archon, 1976)120-24.
54 Thus M.Z. Segal*; Greenberg, "Stabilization"; Trebolle Barrera, "Qumran Evidence."
55 Thus cautiously C. Rabin, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of the O.T. Text," JTS
n.s. 6 (1955) 174-82 (182).
56 J.T. Milik, DJD III, 169-71; Lange, "They Confirmed" (2009) 62. Thus also N. Fernandez
Marcos, "5QDt y los tipos textuales biblicos," in Biblia Exegesis y Cultura: studios en
178
Barthelemy, the base text of 1Qisab, as well as that of Murisa, was corrected
several times towards the proto-Masoretic text.5 7 In these texts, correction
towards an external source is not impossible, in which case one would have to
assume that these texts, which were already very close to what became the
medieval m, were corrected in the same direction. Such correction would involve
the change towards a central (standard) text, such as a "corrected copy" (15l0
;mo) mentioned in b. Pesa/:1. 112a. -+ p. 31. However, most corrections agreeing
with m seem to be corrections of simple scribal errors;58 therefore it is likely that
the original or a later scribe or reader corrected the manuscripts towards their
base text in the case of an error. This base text was identical to the medieval m.
Upon the publication of the Murabba'at fragments {DJD II, 1961) left behind
at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt, some scholars realized that these scrolls
were closer to m than the Qumran scrolls. - p. 30, n. 16. These scholars then
suggested that stabilization must have taken place some time after the first revdlt
when the Qumran scrolls were left behind (70 CE) and before the Bar Kochba
revolt (132-135 CE). 59 The basis for this argument is the textual fluidity of the
Qumran texts, while the Murabba'at texts only attest to m. 60 According to this
view, the facts seem to point to a process of stabilization some time around 100
CE, but we interpret the data differently. A renewed study of the Judean Desert
texts now enables us to improve the analysis (see below).
In our view, none of the arguments adduced in favor of an assumed effort
towards the creation of a standard text holds ground. The idea of the creation of
such a standard text is a mere hypothesis born in the minds of scholars, mainly as
a result of misinterpreting the evidence. Beyond the counter arguments adduced
above, the major arguments relating to the optical illusion of the Judean Desert
evidence are as follows:
The distinction between the fragments found at the various Judean

Desert sites as described on pp. 29-31 is crucial to our understanding of
the evidence. The 25 texts that were found at sites in the Judean Desert
other than Qumran display almost complete identity with the medieval
honor del Prof D. Jose Marta Casciaro (ed. G. Aranda et al.; Pamplona: EUNSA, 1994) 119-
57
58
59
60
25. For an analysis, see E. Tov, "The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts
Found at Qumran," in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant & U.
Rappaport; Leiden/New York/Cologne/Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press/Yad Izhak
Ben-Zvi, 1992) 299-314 (307-8).
Barthelemy, Critique textuel/e 1992, cxiii. This assumption is unlikely because the level of
disagreement between 1Qlsab and Murlsa on the one hand and the medieval m on the
other is much higher than the details in which the former had presumably been
corrected.
See Tov, Scr. Prac., 223-5.
R. de Vaux, "Les grottes de Murabba'at et leurs documents: Rapport preliminaire," RB
60 (1953) 245--67 (264); P.W. Skehan, "The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,"
VTSup 4 (1957) 148-60 (148); D. Barthelemy, Etudes, 352-5; id., Critique textuelle 1992,
cxiii referring to MurXII. Cross, "Fixation," 217 (the "Pharisaic-Hillelite Recension")
speaks of an earlier period of stabilization ("early first century C.E.").
The validity of this argument was criticized by Ulrich* 2003 (-+ p. 29, n. 11) and
Albrektson*, Text who claimed that the Murabba'at texts and the medieval m text are
not identical.
179
tradition of m when compared with codex U. On the other hand, themlike Qumran scrolls are merely close to L, while belonging to the same
textual family.
Most scholars treat the Masada evidence and that of the Bar-Kochba
sites in the same way, and therefore draw the conclusion that the
Qumran scrolls display textual plurality, while the "later" texts from the
other sites reflect textual uniformity. However, the Masada texts (copied
between 50 BCE and 30 CE) are not later than the Qumran texts. The BarKochba sites are later, since the scrolls found there were copied between
20 BCE and 115 CE. The difference between the sites is therefore not
chronological, but socio-religious. -+ pp. 29-31. As a result, the finds
from the Judean Desert do not support an assumption of stabilization or
a standard text since both early (Masada) and late texts (the Bar Kochba
sites of Wadi Murabba'at, Wadi Sdeir, Nahal Bever, Nahal Arugot, and
Nahal Se'elim) reflect m, while Qumran reflects a textual plurality.
During the same period, we thus find a stable text tradition at Masada
and the other sites (m) and textual fluidity at Qumran (m-like and other
texts).
While there is no evidence for the assumption of a standard text or
stabilization for the biblical text as a whole, 61 during this period the mgroup remained internally stable, as described on pp. 29-31. There was
no movement from pluriformity to uniformity but, in the words of van
der Woude*, 163, "there was a basically uniform tradition besides a
pluriform tradition in Palestine Judaism in the last centuries sc."
The internal stability of the m-group was intentional, but the apparent
stability throughout Israel was not a planned process. When analyzing
the situation throughout Israel, and noting that all the texts were
textually stable after 70 CE, we are not faced with the result of planned
developments in ancient Israel, but rather with a situation that was
merely the result of historical events. From a textual point of view, it was
a mere coincidence that m was the only text remaining after the
destruction of the Temple. This situation created an illusion of stability
across the board, as if involving all the biblical evidence. However, after
70 CE only m was left in Jewish hands.
longer exerted any influence
in Jewish circles since it was now in Christian hands, w. was with the
Samaritan community, and the Qumran scrolls were hidden in caves.
Other scrolls may have been circulating in Palestine, the likes of those
that were imported to Qumran. However, we do not hear about such
scrolls, probably because there was no organized community left in
61 Thus also Albrektson*; van der Woude*; Ulrich* 2000, 86 and 2010, 155.
180
Palestine that would use texts like 4QJerb,d or 4QJosha, which deviate
greatly from m. However extensive the use of these texts may have been
in earlier periods, we do not hear about them later, since the evidence
after 70 CE is monolithically rabbinic. 62 Therefore, again speaking in
textual terms, the m-group did not thrust aside other texts. After the
destruction of 70 CE, the m-group was not thought of differently than
before 70 CE, but now there were no longer any competing texts. The
other texts had not been ousted, and the proto-Masoretic family (for the
term-+ p. 26) was not victorious, as is often claimed in the literature. As a
result, the concepts of stabilization and standardization, born out of a
misinterpretation of the evidence, should be removed from our
vocabulary. m was a firm text throughout the period that is known to u's,
from c. 250 BCE onwards, so shaped because of conservative textual transmission, and not because of any form of stabilization of the Bible text.63
3. A New Description
The description of the development of the biblical text 64 in this section

should be viewed together with the other parts of this chapter. Analyses
of the textual history by other scholars incorporate aspects that are
discussed elsewhere in this chapter: textual theories ( 1) and the shape
of the biblical text in early periods (section B). These two analyses are not
integrated in the discussion below since they introduce unnecessary
abstractions that are of limited help in understanding the development of
the biblical text. By the same token, we do not discuss here the possible
stabilization of the biblical text and the assumption of the so-called
victory of the proto-Masoretic text, both refuted in 2. Because of the
absence of these elements, the description below is relatively brief. We
try to base our description on the manuscript evidence itself, while
realizing that such evidence is lacking for the early periods and that our
description is as subjective as those of others. The description of the
development of the biblical text refers only to Hebrew sources and the
reconstructed Vorlage of 6). Other versional evidence is less relevant. 65
In the description of the textual development, we distinguish between
(a) the early period until c. 250 BCE for which we have no manuscript
62
63
64
65
The Torah scroll from the synagogue of Severus and R. Meir's Torah probably form an
exception.-+ pp. 112-13
Van Seters, Edited Bible, 60-112 reaches the same negative view regarding the
standardization by approaching the data from a different angle.
The development of m is described on pp. 27-36.
The reconstructed Vorlagen+ of the other translations were very close to rn (in our
terminology !ll+ includes([, 5, and D).-+ p. 29
181
evidence, and (b) the period from c. 250 BCE until the Bar Kochba revolt
(132-135 cE) for which there is a growing amount of evidence. At the
same time, both descriptions are speculative, less so in the case of the
latter.
a. Early Period until c. 250
BCE
Chronological framework. While the end of this period is determined by the

presence of textual evidence, the beginning of the textual transmission is
not clearly defined. It is natural to assume that transmission began when
the compositions contained in the biblical books had been completed.
However, limited copying had already begun at an earlier stage when
segments of the books existed in written form prior to the completion of
the composition process.-+ ch. 7. A description of the transmission of the
biblical text thus begins with the completion of the literary compositions
and, to a certain extent, even beforehand.-+ p. 182
Scriptural evidence. The Scripture text common to all witnesses
occasionally contains references to the writing of segments of the books
prior to the composition of the biblical books as they are known to us. 66
Similarly, it appears that the editorial process that is assumed for most
biblical books presupposes previously written texts. It is reasonable to
assume that editors-scribes who inserted their words into an earlier
formulation of a composition had to base themselves on written texts.
This applies, for example, to the revision of Joshua-Kings and Jeremiah
by their Dtr+ editor(s). It thus follows that the editors of the final
compositional stages acted as both authors and scribes, since they copied
from earlier compositions in the course of their editing. The same applies
to the Chronicler who, in the process of rewriting, copied considerable
portions of Genesis and Samuel-Kings from m+,
or a similar form of
these books. He also incorporated sections of other compositions. Some
of the differences between the present parallel segments in Scripture
were perhaps created at a very early stage -+ pp. 12-17, before these
units were integrated into the compositions as represented by the
canonical+ books, while others were created at later stages.
66 Thus the Ten Commandments were inscribed on the stone tablets of the Covenant
(Exod 34:1). Exod 24:4 states that "Moses then wrote down all the commands of the
LORD." This statement probably refers to the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 21-23).
Further, "Joshua wrote these things in the book of the law of God" Gosh 24:26). Finally,
Jeremiah dictated to his scribe Baruch not only a first scroll that was subsequently
destroyed by the king (36:23), but also a second scroll containing "the whole text of the
scroll that King Jehoiakim of Judah had burned; and more of the like was added" Oer
36:32).
182
Literary development. At some stage, the literary growth of a biblical

book was completed. That literary crystallization was accepted as
authoritative from the point of view of its content. When the literary
development was simple, that is, when the composition was not
rewritten, textual transmission started from its literary crystallization,
such as in the case of many individual Psalms.
However, sometimes the process of literary crystallization occurred more than
once in different periods when additional literary developments took place after
the completion of the initial composition. The revised edition was intended to
take the place of the preceding one and was subsequently circulated, but the
evidence shows that it did not always replace, or maybe never eradicated the
copies of the earlier edition. 67 By coincidence, some of these earlier editions have
been preserved
and a few Qumran scrolls.- ch. 7B and Tov* 2010. At that
early stage, copies of the biblical books differed as much from one another as the
texts described in ch. 7, and more so.
Creation of literary and textual variants. The developments described in

the preceding paragraphs led to the creation of literary variations
(variants) such as described in ch. 7. These variants differ from textual
variants such as described in ch. 4c that were created in the textual
transmission process.
In Ulrich's terminology(-+ p. 174), "variant literary editions" of several books
were already circulated in early centuries. This process was probably limited to a
number of books, while in others such developments may not have occurred. The
glimpses of evidence known to us do not allow us to have a good grasp of the
evidence, positive or negative. 68 Thus, the absence of major differences between
early texts of a book does not imply that greatly deviating copies did not exist at
an earlier stage. It merely means that such copies have not been preserved. For
example, deviations such as those in Jeremiah(-+ ch. 7B1) could have existed also
for the other prophetical books.
Nature of the textual evidence. All Scripture copies differed from one
another because they each reflected the personality of their authorsscribes and, at a later stage, copyists-scribes. 69 -+ p. 240. These different
6? The concept of replacing earlier editions with new ones probably belongs to modern
society. The ancients were less perturbed by the concurrent circulation of different
editions.-+ p. 110
68 The coincidental discovery of fragments of some 235 biblical scrolls in the Judean Desert
(210 at Qumran) deriving from the last centuries BCE and the first centuries CE shows
how misleading our knowledge about textual evidence may be if we base ourselves on
partial information.
69 Scribal copying and transmission are characterized by inconsistency at all levels since
ancient scribes did not strive for consistency. It is unknown why certain books were
extensively rewritten in the course of their literary history, while others were
presumably less extensively rewritten. Lack of consistency also characterized such
technical aspects as orthography+, the indication of open and closed sections+, and the
insertion of content clarifications.-+ Tov, "Consistency"
183
scrolls were all authoritative Scripture copies despite the fact that they
often differed from one another in major ways. If the Temple was the
main repository for the biblical scrolls -+ p. 30, it is probable that the
completed copies were stored there in early centuries, possibly replacing
earlier literary versions once found in the Temple.7 The preservation
pattern was different for each biblical book. In some books, the last
literary version was preserved in m, while lB and ill retained later literary
formulations that were based on an edition like m in other books.-+ pp.
80-82,
(Table 26)
Diffusion of scrolls. There is no evidence regarding the diffusion of

Bible scrolls in early periods. Tov, "Diffusion" suggested that only single
copies of the books were extant in the Temple in early centuries and that
some of them were rewritten there.7 1 At some point, books started to
circulate beyond the Temple. These developments must have taken place
before the 3rd century BCE, because at that time several copies were
already circulating (the evidence from the Judean Desert). Undoubtedly,
the exiles took Scripture copies with them after the fall of the First
Temple, but we do not know how many copies left Israel in the exile and
how many new ones were created there.
b. Period from c. 250
BCE
until132-135 CE
The latest evidence for the biblical text dates to the Bar-Kochba revolt
(132-135 CE). After that time, the text did not change substantially and its
various branches were firmly anchored in several religious environments.-+ p. 179
While a description of the textual developments preceding c. 250 BCE
amounts to mere speculation, the description of the developments in the
70 This description disregards the possibility of parallel pristine editions -+ pp. 163-5,
since no such evidence has been preserved.
71 This description owes much to N. Lohfink, "Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?," in Jeremia und die "deuteronomistische Bewegung" (ed. W. Gross; BBB 98;
Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum, 1995) 313-82 (335-47) = id., Studien zum Deuteronomium
und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III (SBAB 20; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1955) 65-142 (91-104) and M. Haran, "Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second
Temple Period: The Transition from Papyrus to Skins," HUCA 54 (1983) 111-22 (113).
The argumentation in my study "Diffusion" is based on the assumed low literacy rate
in early periods, the story of the discovery of a scroll in the Temple during the reign of
Josiah (2 Kgs 22:8; 23:2, 24; 2 Chr 34:15, 30), and the theoretical argument of a
"production line" reflecting linear development based on a single copy (p. 168). On the
other hand, in the main parallel known for these early centuries, the non-religious
Akkadian literature, multiple editions and copies were circulated after the original text
had been composed, from the beginning of the 2"d millennium onwards. See Cogan,
"Assyriological Perspective."
184
later periods is based on evidence, although here, too, the analysis is

speculative: We do not know what percentage of the scrolls in circulation
at any given time is represented by the preserved Judean Desert scrolls
(the other translations are very close tom). Neither do we know
whether the percentages of the types of scrolls preserved at Qumran
(-+ pp. 107-8) reflect the reality in ancient Israel as a whole.
Scribal approaches. The textual variants analyzed in ch. 4c3 and 7

make it likely that initially all editors-scribes approached the text freely.
At some point, a careful copying approach developed for the transmitted
text, but it is hard to know when this process began (precision is not
necessarily connected to the inception of a sacred or authoritative status,
as shown by the transmission of the Torah. -+ pp. 188-9). The known
texts cannot be rigidly subdivided into free and careful texts,72 but some
typical exponents of both approaches are mentioned below.
Free approach. When
new copies, scribes altered the transmitted text,
first as authors/ editors-scribes, 3 and later as copyists-scribes (for the distinction, see p. 240)?4 Editorial freedom is reflected in the texts analyzed in ch. 7B.
Scribal freedom comes to light in the insertion of many small changes (additions,
omissions, content changes). - ch. 2, Tables 12-13, 21; ch. 4c3. This freedom is
also reflected in changes in orthography+ and morphology+, while careless
copying brought about many mistakes, erasures, and corrections. Typical
representatives of this group are the Ul.-group, the Nash papyrus- p. 111, the
Severus Scroll - pp. 112-13, 4QCantb - DJD XVI, 208, the texts written in the
QSP+, and surprisingly, also the harmonizations in the Vorlage of \\J-Torah?5- p.
136. This free approach did not harm the sacred status of these texts, since all of
them were authoritative copies of "Scripture." Beyond secondary variants, these
texts also contain original readings just as any other text. Occasional displays of
freedom are reflected also in texts that are described below as "careful."
Careful approach. Carefully copied texts usually disallow changes in content,
language, orthography, etc. The m-group (including many m-like texts found at
Qumran -+ pp. 31-2) is the major representative of this approach, although
72 See below, "change of approach." Furthermore, a text like 4QSama is carefully written
and contains many original readings vis-a-vis the other texts, but is probably best
characterized by its many exponents of exegesis. For examples, see pp. 236, 245-6, 253,
261.
73 Editors and scribes left no visible traces of their changes in the scrolls when inserting
them in the new copies they created.-+ p. 284
74 While it is impossible to make a precise distinction between these two groups of scribes,
we make a quantitative distinction, ascribing small changes to the second group.
Precision does not always reflect a second stage in the development of texts. J. Cerny,
Paper & Books in Ancient Egypt (London: H.K. Lewis & Co. Ltd, 1952) 25 quotes the
scribe of the Egyptian Book of the Dead from Iuya from 1400 BCE: "[The book] is
completed from its beginning to its end as it was found written, having been copied,
revised, compared, and verified sign by sign."
75 While these texts are often named "vulgar" in the wake of Kahle* -+ p. 172, the
characterization "free" better describes their character.
185
changes had been inserted also in this text at an earlier stage, and its Samuel text
is often corrupt. ..... p. 189. Another relatively careful text is the Hebrew Vorlage of
11), although that text also harmonized small details in the Torah ...... p. 136
All the texts described here as free and careful were circulated in ancient
Israel as authoritative Scripture during the last three centuries BCE and the first
two centuries CE. It is not known which texts were most widely circulated, for the
preserved evidence may be misleading. If the Qumran evidence provides a
reliable picture for all of ancient Israel, one notes a large representation of m-like
texts (48% in the Torah and 44% in the other books ..... pp. 107-8)?6 At the other
Judean Desert sites, m is the sole text used ...... p. 29
Change of approach. In the period for which we possess textual evidence, the
two77 approaches co-existed, though not in the same religious environments. The
difficulty of analyzing the evidence is underlined by the application of different
approaches to the same texts throughout the centuries. A free approach was
applied to the first developmental stages of the texts, but they were later copied
carefully. Thus, signs of freedom applied tom in the period before c. 250 BCE are
visible in mistakes (pp. 9-17) and small theological changes that remained in the
text (pp. 254-6). w. is a typical exponent of a free approach, but its medieval texts
show that after a certain time it was copied very precisely except for its spelling.
As expected, different approaches are visible in the various books (see pp. 188-9
regarding the Vorlage+ of 11)-Torah and m-Samuel).
Background. It is difficult to know under what circumstances and in which

social circles the two approaches were created, perpetuated, and used. It would
stand to reason that the freely copied texts were not used for public functions,
but were merely personal copies. However, this assumption is not borne out by
the evidence. lQisaa, a typical example of a carelessly copied scroll and a
characteristic example of the QSP+, was used much by the Qumran community,
as shown by its many scribal markings ..... p. 205 and its storage in a jar. w., a good
example of a freely edited text, was revered by the Samaritans. We therefore have
to deny a connection between the precision of the scrolls and their status within a
specific religious group. A direct connection between the sanctity of the text and
76 See Tov, "Diffusion." R.E. Fuller, "The Biblical Prophetic Manuscripts from the Judaean
Desert," in Prophecy After the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the
Understanding of the Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (ed. K. De Troyer & A. Lange;
Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 3-23 notes that the preponderance of m-Iike texts among the
Qumran manuscripts is visible especially in the first century BCE, but this fact may be
misleading since the manuscript evidence for Qumran increases considerably in that
period, representing the first century of the settlement at Qumran ...... p. 190
77 The evidence does not permit us to distinguish three approaches that created different
texts, as suggested by Lieberman*: "inferior" (cjlau.>-.6TEpa) texts used by the populace,
texts used for purposes of instruction and learning (Kol v6TEpa, "widely circulated"),
and "exact copies"
fostered by the Temple circles. This model is based
solely on external parallels and not on extant Hebrew texts. Furthermore, pace
Lieberman, it stands to reason that in synagogues and houses of learning (bate midrash)
use was made only of corrected scrolls. -+ Tov* 2008, 182. Likewise, there is no
evidence for an "official" text of the Bible as suggested by Cross ..... p. 175 and Schenker*
2007.
186
a careful scribal approach was made only in rabbinic Judaism and by its
predecessors, at least from the 3rd century BCE onwards.-+ pp. 29-31
Comparison with scribes of other compositions. Editors-scribes

composed and rewrote biblical books in the same way that all other
compositions were created. -+ p. 285, n. 6. Likewise, the Qumran evidence
shows that scribal practices used in the copying of biblical texts differed
only to a very small degree from those employed for non-biblical texts.78
Creation of literary and textual variants. In this relatively late period,
literary and textual variants were created just as in the early periods. m
was already more or less fixed, but it continued to be rewritten, as is
visible in the reworking of texts resembling m by .w., the group of
manuscripts named 4QRP+ in the Torah, and the Hebrew Vorlage of in
1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel (all these literary editions cannot be dated
easily). -+ ch. 7s15, 16, 21, 23. Variants resulting from the textual
transmission were created all the time.-+ ch. 4c
Textual plurality and authority. Several of the biblical books were
circulated in different text forms during the last three centuries BCE,
reflecting textual plurality.79 This plurality is visible when comparing
ancient texts evidenced at different locations, such as m, , and Ill.
Sources found at a single locality, Qumran, likewise point to plurality.
The more than 210 texts found at Qumran differ from one another in
overlapping sections and in character, while some textual groups and
clusters are also recognized.-+ p. 107. Textual plurality characterized also
the manuscripts of all the non-biblical compositions found at Qumran. 80
In view of this plurality, we ought to ask ourselves which copies carried
authority, some or all, and for whom? For the Qumran community, the various
Scripture texts were equally authoritative since its members paid no attention to
textual differences between these texts:
a. Pluralistic collection. The Qumran corpus is pluralistic, 81 due to among
other things the differing origins and nature of the scrolls that were imported
into the community and copied locally. These texts relate to one another and
towards the texts known before 1947 in a complicated web of relations. When
collecting their Scripture books, the members of the community thus made no
78 The careful copying of sacred texts as instructed by rabbinic literature should not be
invoked as evidence for a distinction, since this approach pertains to a later period and
only to certain circles. -+ Tov, Scr. Prac., 250-54
79 The assumption of textual plurality in that period is now accepted among scholars. See
e.g. E. Ulrich, "Piuriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,"
in Trebolle, Madrid Qumran Congress, 1.23-41; Lange, "Plurality."
80 See C. Hempel, "Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition," in
Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient judaism (ed. M. Popovic; JSJSup 141; Leiden/Boston,
2010) 193-208; ead., "Sources and Redaction in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Growth of
Ancient Texts," in Grossman, Rediscovering, 162-81.
8 1 See the analysis on p. 107.
187
effort to adhere to a single textual group. The fact that these different texts were
found in the same caves reflects a textual plurality between the 3'd century BCE
and the 1st century CE at Qumran and in the country as a whole, if indeed many
scrolls came from elsewhere.-+ p. 110
Within the textual plurality some clusters are recognized -+ pp. 107-9: The
Qumran corpus includes a group of pre-Samaritan texts and texts that are close
to the Hebrew source of d), while the m-Iike texts and a cluster of texts that are not
close to any other text (non-aligned+ texts) form the majority. This great number
of m-Iike texts probably reflects the dominance of m in several sectors in Israel.
b. Lack of preference for a specific biblical text in the Qumran compositions.
The Qumran covenanters copied sectarian and non-sectarian texts and authored
sectarian compositions containing biblical quotations. In these quotations, no
specific text or text group is preferred.8 2 -+ p. 114
Plurality alongside uniformity in ancient Israel. While textual plurality was
characteristic of ancient Israel as a whole, m was the sole text used in certain
circles. -+ p. 110. As m was the only text evidenced at the Judean Desert sites
other than Qumran (texts copied between c. 50 BCE and 115 CE from Masada and
the Bar Kochba sites such as Murabba'at and Nahal f-.lever), and is the only text
quoted in rabbinic literature, it has been suggested that it was promoted and
circulated by rabbinic Judaism.-+ pp. 29-31
Texts that were adopted later by specific religious groups (!11, d), JJ.t) were
circulating freely in Palestine as authoritative biblical texts before the destruction
of the Temple. At that time, the pre-Samaritan scrolls found at Qumran were not
associated with Samaritan circles. This was probably a popular text (-+ p. 93),
although the one-sided information from Qumran does not show the extent of its
popularity. m was circulated beyond the Temple circles (note the !11-like texts
found at Qumran), and the Vorlage of d) was not connected to any religious
environment.
As a result, before the destruction of the Second Temple, some circles like the
Qumran community did not distinguish between the Bible texts, while other
circles used only !11. In other words, at that time uniformity coexisted with textual
plurality -+ p. 179, and as a result it did not replace textual plurality in 70 CE, as
many scholars claim.-+ 2. Thus, as a result of historical coincidence, m became
the only accepted text in Israel after 70 CE (-+ p. 180), when the preferences of the
group sponsoring m were embraced by all of Israel or imposed upon them.
Text types? Each scribe created a new copy in accord with his understanding of the content and his scribal practices. With one exception (the
m-group -+ pp. 79-87), scrolls of different Scripture books or the same
book did not share typological features, precluding the assumption of
text types. -+ pp. 158-60. Elements common to scrolls include:
82 A case in point is the sectarian 4QTestimonia (4Q175) in which each of the biblical
sections reflects a different textual pattern: Exod 20:21 (a pre-Samaritan text combining
m Deut 5:28-29 and 18:18-19 as in l.U), Num 24:15-17 (undetermined character), and
Deut 33:8-11 (very close to the non-aligned+
188
i. The texts of m from the Judean Desert and the Middle Ages form a tight
textual family of almost identical content, but they do not share typological
features.-+ pp. 26-7
ii. The scrolls copied in the QSP+ share distinct scribal features, but these are
not typological.-+ pp. 109-10
iii. Features shared by some 1.1) books, in particular in their short readings .....
pp. 138-9, reflect literary development and are not typological at the textual level.
Negatively: The various scrolls do not reflect local text types ...... pp. 173-4
Correction? Since different copies of the biblical text were circulated,

it is possible that a tendency developed to compare them or to correct
some texts according to others. However, in our view there is no
evidence that different Scripture texts were compared- pp. 177-8, while
it is likely that texts within them family were corrected according to the
master copy in the Temple Court. - p. 30
Coincidence explaining the differing fates of Scripture books. The quantity

and nature of the textual and literary variant readings in a particular
book or segment resulted from the complexity of its literary development
and textual transmission. When faced with differing patterns of textual
and literary variation in the biblical books, we do not know whether they
should be ascribed to differences between these books or segments in
their literary development and textual transmission or to the vicissitudes
of the preservation of the ancient sources. The differing literary and
textual data for each book may reflect the design of ancient editors and
scribes, but it is more likely that coincidence is a stronger factor. 83 As a
result, we cannot draw analogies between the literary and textual status
of one book and that of another. 84 We turn to two books.
Torah. The Torah had a distinctive, sacred status that could have influenced
scribes to approach that book with special care and a lower level of intervention
than the other Scripture books. However, the evidence does not support such an
assumption. (1) The various witnesses of the Torah (m, w., Qumran scrolls, the
Vorlage+ of 1.1)) reflect the same degree of editorial intervention as the other books .
..... ch. 7B6, 14, 21, 23. (2) While the orthography of the Torah in m is usually more
conservative than that of the rest of the biblical books -+ p. 218, the number of its
textual variants is no smaller than that of those books. (3) Several Torah scrolls
are written carelessly and inconsistently in the QSP+ (e.g. 4QNumb, 1QDeufl,
83 This pertains to the significant textual-literary data recognized in Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
but not in other prophetic books -+ ch. 781, 3; linguistic-orthographic idiosyncrasies in
m-Jeremiah 27-29; the changes of the divine names in the "Eiohistic" Psalms 42-89 (or:
83) only and not elsewhere in the Psalter-+ pp. 14-15; the rewriting of 1 Kings in the
Vorlage of II} but not in 2 Kings or 1-2 Samuel; the textual nature of m-Samuel-+ p. 189.
For all these, see Tov*, "Coincidental Textual Nature."
84 For some books only limited scribal variation is known, but this situation may be
coincidental. For example, see the data collected by Schafer on Lamentations in BHQ,
part 18, 17*-20*.
189
4QDeutk2, 4QDeutm), involving adaptations of unusual forms to the context,

frequent errors, numerous corrections, and sometimes, also, careless handwriting. (4) -a3 and lli are characterized by a large number of small harmonizations ..... p. 136, n. 228. In conclusion, paradoxically, the Torah was rewritten and
changed more extensively than the other biblical books in the Second Temple
period, due to its sanctity and popularity, thus causing increased textual
variation. 85
m-Samuel. The somewhat corrupt nature of m-Samuel was apparently due to
the copy that was included in the archetype of m and that, by chance, had been
corrupted to a certain extent at an earlier stage. 86 Accordingly, the distinctive
nature of m-Samuel does not reflect the approach of early copyists towards this
book, but the idiosyncratic nature of m .... Tov, "Coincidental Textual Nature,"
also reflected in its relatively high level of theological intervention ..... pp. 254-6
"Rewritten Scripture" texts, excerpted texts, and textual criticism. While

many exegetical elements were inserted in the authoritative Scripture copies in
the course of their rewriting and transmission (-+ ch. 4c, 7B), a group of closely
related non-biblical texts were likewise altered from the earlier text, viz., the socalled "rewritten Scripture" texts. 87 The two groups differ in their authoritative
status, but both inserted changes in their underlying texts. Editors-scribes o(
biblical manuscripts such as them-group, the Vorlage of \\3 in 1 Kings, Esther, and
Daniel and m-Jeremiah inserted major and minor changes in the text, all of which
were included in the Scripture texts that were circulated in ancient Israel. Similar
changes, often far more encompassing, were embedded in rewritten Scripture
texts (e.g. 4-llQTemple, Jubilees, the so-called apocrypha of Joshua, Moses, and
Jeremiah from Qumran). However, the large changes of this type are not relevant
for the textual criticism of Hebrew Scripture since these works represent new
compositions and not Scripture texts. Moreover, they did not serve as
authoritative Scripture texts in later periods, 88 with the exception of Jubilees and
85 See E. Tov, "The Scribal and Textual Transmission of the Torah Analyzed in Light of Its
Sanctity" in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Ancient World (ed. G. Hata & A. Moriya; Kyoto:
Kyoto University Academic Press, 2011) 107-24 Qapanese); S.W. Crawford* 2008, 19-38.
86 See Thenius (Lohr), Biicher Samuels, xxviii-xxix; Wellhausen, Biicher Samuelis, 16; H.P.
Smith, The Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1899) xxx: "The text of these
books in the current Hebrew recensipn is more corrupt than the text of any other part of
the Old Testament, unless it be the Book of Ezekiel."; S.R. Driver, Samuel, v. On the
other hand, P.A.H. de Boer, Samuel, 80 and id., "Research into the Text of 1 Samuel
xviii-xxxi," OTS 6 (1949) 1-100 (4) and Pisano, Additions or Omissions maintain the
supremacy of m in this book. For a summary of these and other views, see A. van der
Kooij, "De tekst van Samuel en het tekstkritisch onderzoek," NTT 36 (1982) 177-204.
87 See Crawford* 2008; G.J. Brooke, "Rewritten Bible," in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls
(ed. L.H. Schiffman & J.C. VanderKam; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press,
2000) 2.777-81; M. Segal, "Between Bible and Rewritten Bible," in Biblical Interpretation
at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand
Rapids, Ml/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005) 10--29.-+ p. 114. Zahn, "Rewritten Scripture"
(2010) 326--9 discusses the difficulties in distinguishing between rewritten Scripture and
exegetical Bible manuscripts.
88 On the other hand, 4-11QTemple and Jubilees were probably considered authoritative
by the Qumran community.
190
Enoch.89 At the same time, these texts reflect several ancient variants in small
details that are taken into consideration in textual analysis. Likewise, excerpted
and abbreviated Bible texts reflect many small variants, but their shorter and
sometimes rearranged text is not taken into consideration in textual-literary
analysis.-+ pp. 114, 320-21
Diffusion of scrolls. Within the biblical corpus, a special interest in the Torah
is visible at all the Judean Desert sites. - p. 95, n. 158
Starting with the earliest scrolls found at Qumran, dating to c. 250-200 BCE, an
increasingly larger number of scrolls is evidenced for each subsequent period.
The peak years of production of the scrolls found at Qumran were during the
time of the community's settlement there, from c. 100 BCE to 50 CE, in everincreasing numbers. 90 The evidence includes both recentlf copied and older
scrolls that were used by the Judean Desert communities.9 Lange, "Plurality,"
59-64 pointed out that the scrolls of them-group appear in large quantities from
the middle of the 1st century BCE onwards.
It is hard to know how the number of scrolls found at Qumran and the other
Judean Desert sites relates to the total number of scrolls circulating throughout
Israel.
Ownership. In the last centuries BCE, with limited literacy, which was even
more pronounced in earlier times, individuals would not have owned private
copies of scrolls. Probably, Scripture scrolls were only found in religious centers
such as the Qumran community, the Temple, houses of learning, and houses of
religious gathering. In these places, m must have been as dominant as it was at
the Judean Desert sites. - p. 29. There probably was a correlation between the
influence of the circles that produced and circulated the scrolls and the extent of
their diffusion. Thus, the stronger the influence of the keepers of m, the greater
the number of m and m-like scrolls that were circulated in Israel.
89 These books are considered authoritative in the Ethiopian Church.
90 These numbers reflect the copying of scrolls at Qumran and elsewhere and they refer
only to the production date of the scrolls and not to the date of their introduction to the
Qumran community. The relatively small number of early scrolls dating to the period
before the beginning of settlement at Qumran (31) does not necessarily indicate that
fewer scrolls were available in earlier centuries in ancient Israel. The evidence may
show that the inhabitants took with them a small number of such early scrolls. At the
same time, it is likely that fewer scrolls were available in the century prior to the
settlement at Qumran. The equally small number of scrolls copied after c. 50 CE may be
due to the political turmoil in the country and the sudden destruction of the Qumran
community.
91 The Judean Desert communities possessed both recent and older scrolls (those written
100 years or more earlier), but we lack the necessary controls for evaluating the
evidence. Among other things we do not know which of the Judean Desert scrolls had
been removed from general use (discarded) before being left behind in the first and
second centuries CE.- Tov, "Diffusion," 155
4
COPYING AND TRANSMITTING
THE BIBLICAL TEXT
A. Demsky & M. Bar-Ilan, "Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism," in Mulder, Mikra,
1-38; Freedman-Mathews, Leviticus; Ginsburg, Introduction; Glatzer, "Aleppo Codex";
Habermann, Ketav; Hall, Companion; M. Haran, "On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in
Ancient Israel," VTSup 40 (1988) 81-95; M. Higger, mskt swprym wnlww 'lyh mdrs mskt
swprym b'(New York: de-be Rabbanan, 1937; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970); Martin, Scribal
Character; Reynolds-Wilson, Scribes & Scholars; J.P. Siegel, The Scribes of Qumran, Studies in
the Early History of Jewish Scribal Customs, with Special Reference to the Qumran Biblical Scrolls
and to the Tannaitic Traditions of Massekheth Soferim, Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University,.
Waltham, MA, 1972.
A. Background and Chronological Framework
This chapter deals with the copying of the biblical books and their
transmission from one generation to the next, from the compositional
stages until the Middle Ages. The biblical text developed and changed
much throughout these stages, as can be seen from the many differences
among the textual witnesses and the changes of script, layout, and
content.
An examination of the Judean Desert scrolls confirmed a number of details
that were previously hypothetical, and with the help of these scrolls we now
understand many aspects of the copying and transmission that were not known
previously. The following aspects of the copying and transmitting of the biblical
text are treated in this chapter: writing in scrolls; measures, content, and scope of
scrolls; measures of columns, margins, and lines in scrolls; scribal practices
pertaining to paragraphing, ruling, correcting, word division+, use of final
letters+, scribal marks, stichographic+ arrangement, orthography+, writing in
different scripts; graphic similarity of letters and the ensuing confusions; types of
errors and textual variants+.
The rules for writing sacred texts that are recorded in Massekhet Soferim (..... p.
195) and earlier rabbinic sources are somewhat misleading when detached from
the writing practices of non-sacred texts during the Second Temple period, since
most of these rules were actually employed in both types of text during that
period.l For example, Sof 1.15 states that texts that deviate from the norm
Only a few distinctions between biblical and non-biblical literary manuscripts are
recognizable ...... Scr. Prac., 252-3
192
Chapter 4: Copying and Transmitting the Text
regarding the indication of open and closed sections+ cannot be used as sacred
writings.-+ pp. 199-200. However, this practice, which is basically a paragraphing
system, was followed in most compositions written in the last five centuries BCE,
biblical and non-biblical. Thus, the practice itself was not sacred, but rather the
tradition of indicating a specific type of paragraphing in a given instance.
Likewise, the practice of leaving larger bottom margins than top margins in
manuscripts (Sof 2.5; y. Meg. 1.71d) was the norm in most texts, and not only in
Torah scrolls (-+ Scr. Prac., 100-103). In other cases, criteria were instituted for
regulating precision when copying scrolls, but these criteria were also in vogue
for any well-written scroll from the Judean Desert; in the case of sacred scrolls,
these criteria were formulated in such a way that the scrolls could not be used if
they fell below a certain standard of precision: a scroll of Scripture in which a
complete line was erased (Sof 3.9), scrolls containing more than a certain number
of mistakes (3.10), scrolls with mixed medial and final letters (2.20), or scrolls
displaying letters written beyond the vertical left-hand margin (2.3) could not be
used for sacred purposes. A general lack of distinction between sacred and nonsacred literary texts is recognizable in the following areas: handwriting, writing,
horizontal and vertical ruling, stitching of sheets, size and shape of columns,
correction systems, scribal signs, length of scrolls, number of columns per sheet,
height of columns, margins, paragraphing, repair-stitching (-+ pl. 9*), patching,
initial and final handle sheets+, use of guide dots/ strokes. -+ Scr. Prac., ch. 3-5.
Indeed, the scribe who wrote 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb also copied the biblical
4QSamc and inserted some supralinear+ corrections in 1Qisaa ...... Scr. Prac., 23
By the same token, the scribal approach towards the writing of biblical and nonbiblical literary works was identical and no more care was taken in writing
biblical texts than non-biblical texts, not even in the case of the Torah. 2 ..... pp. 1889. The only texts that were singled out for a careful approach were the paleoHebrew biblical scrolls and them scrolls from sites other than Qumran ...... p. 30.
B. Copying the Biblical Text

1. Materials, Shape, and Scope
Extensive bibliography in Eissfeldt, Introduction, 114. See further: M. Beit-Arie,
"Practices"; id., Hebrew Codicology Uerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,
1981); T. Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhiiltniss zur Litteratur (Berlin: Hertz, 1882);
L. Blau, Studien zum althebriiischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Literaturgeschichte (Budapest,
1902 =Strassburg: Triibner, 1902); A.D. Crown, "Studies in Samaritan Scribal Practices and
Manuscript History: III. Columnar Writing and the Samaritan Massorah," BJRL 67 (1984)
349-81; id., Samaritan Scribes; Glatzer," Aleppo Codex"; M. Haran, "Book-Scrolls in Israel in
Pre-Exilic Times," f/S 33 (1982) 161-73; id., "Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second
Temple Period: The Transition from Papyrus to Skins," HUCA 54 (1983) 111-22; id., "More
Concerning Book-Scrolls in Pre-Exilic Times," JJS 35 (1984) 84-5; id., "The Size of Books in
the Bible and the Division of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic Work," Tarbiz 53
(1984) 329-52 (Heb. with Eng. summ.); id., "Bible Scrolls in Eastern and Western Jewish
Communities from Qumran to the High Middle Ages," HUCA 56 (1985) 21-62; id., "Book
2
Such an approach would be visible in careful copying, fewer corrections (linear or

supralinear), and lack of scribal intervention in general.
B: Copying the Biblical Text
193
Size and the Device of Catch-Lines in the Biblical Canon," JJS 36 (1985) 1-11; id., "Torah
and Bible Scrolls in the First Centuries of the Christian Era," Shnaton 10 (1986-1989) 93-106
(Heb. with Eng. summ.}; id., "The Codex, the Pinax and the Wooden Slats," Tarbiz 57 (1988)
151-{>4 (Heb. with Eng. summ.}; S. Krauss, Talmudische Archiiologie (Leipzig: Fock, 1912)
Ili.l31-98; A. Lemaire, "Writing and Writing Materials," ABO (1992) 6.999-1008; J. Poole &
R. Reed, "The Preparation of Leather and Parchment by the Dead Sea Scrolls Community,"
Technology and Culture 3 (1962) 1-26; M. Steinschneider, Vorlesungen Uber die Kunde
hebriiischer Handschriften, deren Sammlungen und Verzeichnisse (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1897;
2"d ed.: Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1937); M.O. Wise, Thunder in Gemini, and Other
Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine OSPSup 15; Sheffield:
JSOT, 1994} 103-51.
During the First and Second Temple periods, texts were written on stone,
clay tablets, wood, pottery, papyrus, metal (the silver rolls from Ketef
Hinnom+ in the 7th or 6th century BCE and the copper scroll from Qumran
for the Second Temple period), and skins (leather) prepared in various
ways.
Scrolls. The main materials used for the writing of the biblical books were
papyrus and leather. There is no direct evidence regarding the main writing.
material for long texts used in ancient Israel before the period attested by the
Judean Desert documents, when leather was by far the most frequently used.
Both leather and papyrus were in use in Egypt at a very early period, but it is not
impossible that leather was preferred in ancient Israel because it was more
readily available than papyrus, which had to be imported from far-away Egypt. 3
On the other hand, according to Haran* 1983, a few allusions in Scripture suggest
that papyrus served as the main writing material during the First Temple period,
even though no biblical papyrus texts have been preserved from that era 4 and the
Qumran corpus contains very few biblical papyrus copies. For the preparation of
leather and papyrus, see Scr. Prac., 32-5.
While most of the Judean Desert scrolls were written on leather, some 15
percent were written on papyrus, probably meant for private use (cf. Wise*, 12532). Note also Pap. Nash+, which contains the Decalogue and was probably used
for liturgical purposes.
The writing of Scripture on papyrus was forbidden in rabbinic literature (m.
Meg. 2.2 and y. Meg. 1.71d). It therefore stands to reason that the few Qumran
biblical texts written on papyrus (4QpapisaP, 6QpapDeut?, 6QpapKgs,
6QpapPs?, and 6QpapDan) did not derive from a milieu that was influenced by
3
4
Thus R. Lansing Hicks, "Delet and Megillah: A Fresh Approach to Jeremiah XXXVI," VT
33 (1983) 46-66.
Jer 51:63 mentions the binding of a stone to a scroll so that it would sink in the
Euphrates River. According to Haran, this scroll was made of papyrus, since a leather
scroll would have sunk even without a stone. In support of this assumption, Haran*
1983 mentions the Egyptian influence on Canaan in this period that would have
included the use of papyrus, the low price of papyrus in contrast to leather, and the
biblical use of :1nr.1, a verb signifying erasure of a written text with water ("to
obliterate,"' e.g. Exod 32:32). According to Haran, at the beginning of the Second
Temple period scribes started to use leather when the need was felt for the use of
materials capable of containing longer texts. However, in Egypt, this need was not felt,
as papyrus was also used for very long texts. See further Lemaire* 1992.
194
these rabbinic instructions. The rabbinic instructions were formulated at a later

period than the writing of the Qumran papyrus scrolls, but it may be assumed
that the Talmudic traditions reflected earlier customs that already were being
followed during the time of the Qumran occupancy. The non-Masoretic status of
the two larger papyri, 6QpapKgs and 6QpapDan, indicates that they did not
derive from proto-rabbinic circles.5
During the First and Second Temple periods, biblical compositions were
written on scrolls made of leather or papyrus; see b. Gi.t. 60a: "The Torah was
transmitted <to Moses> scroll by scroll." In biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, a scroll
m"gillah (e.g. Jer 36:28; Ezek 3:1), ,>0
megillat Sepher Uer
is named
36:2, 4, 6; Ezek 2:9; Ps 40:8), or just ,>0 (Isa 34:4). On the fastening, storage, and
protecting of scrolls with linen wrappings, see Scr. Prac., 39-43.
Scrolls consisted of sheets of leather that were sewn together, or segments of
papyrus that were glued together, and often had an initial and/or final
uninscribed handle sheet. ..... 1Qisaa, 4QGeng,k. Scroll examples are presented in
plates 2*-10*-observe the stitching of the scroils in plates 2*-4*. One could roll
the scrolls from both directions, and during the Talmudic period the use of
wooden bars was introduced to keep the skins firm (one such sample is
preserved in 11QapocrPs ..... DJD XXIII, 183). The custom of this period
determined the form of the scrolls subsequently used in the synagogue.
While the physical aspects of the ancient scrolls are described in full in Scr.
Prac., some aspects are described here briefly.
Content and scope of scrolls. The known texts from the Judean Desert contain
only a single biblical book or part thereof, with the exception of ten Qumran
copies of the Torah that contain two books and Mur 1, which probably contained
Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers ...... ch. 2, Table 20 (pp. 96-7). The Minor Prophets
were regarded as one book: 4QXIIb,g, MurXII and 81-:levXII gr. 6 For the
dimensions of scrolls, sheets, columns, and margins, the number of sheets in a
scroll and the number of columns in a sheet, see Scr. Prac., 79-104.
The following features are noteworthy:
The longest of the Qumran biblical scrolls is 1Qisaa, which contains the
entire 66 chapters of Isaiah (7.34 meters). It is reasonable to assume that even
longer scrolls were in use at the time. For example, the reconstructed length of
81-:levXII gr is more than 10 meters, and that of 4QRPb, c (4Q364, 4Q365) is 22-27
meters.
All known Qumran copies of the Five Scrolls (with the exception of 4QQoha)
are small (7-15 lines) and contain merely a single book ...... Scr. Prac., 90
Another scroll of small dimensions written in small column blocks probably
contained only the "Song of Moses" from Deuteronomy 32, viz., 4QDeutq with
narrow columns of 11 lines. Other scrolls written in small column blocks
probably did not contain the complete biblical books: 4QGend (11 lines), 4QExode
5
6
The use of papyrus does not indicate the non-canonical status of 6QpapDan (thus D.
Barthelemy, DJD I, 150) because of the presence of the other papyrus texts.
According to the opinions expressed in b. B. Bat. 13b, some rabbis permitted the copying
of scrolls of varying scope: small scrolls containing only one book and larger scrolls
encompassing all the books of the Torah, Prophets, or Writings, and even a scroll
containing the entire Hebrew Scriptures. However, B. Gi,t. 60a forbids the use in the
synagogue of separate scrolls of the individual books of the Torah.
195
(8 lines), cols. 11-V of 4QDeutn (12 lines), 4QDeuti (14 lines), SQDeut (15 lines),
4QEzekb (11 lines) and 4QPsb (16, 18 narrow lines ..... plate 7*).
The letters were suspended from below horizontal lines.
Different systems were used at the beginnings and ends of scrolls to protect
the inscribed surface: uninscribed areas and handle sheets.
Codices. In medieval times, most biblical texts were written on a codex
(plural: codices) of parchment, that is, any number of double-leaves that were
inserted and stitched together as a book. Such a codex was named
mi?hap
when used for reading in general and sometimes also i::lO, "book," when used
liturgically. However, sefer sometimes also denoted a "roll." ..... Glatzer*
Liturgical and non-liturgical use. From early times, a distinction was made
between liturgical scrolls used in the public reading of Hebrew Scripture in
places of worship, and non-liturgical or private texts. The custom of writing in
codices is well evidenced for the post-Talmudic period, apparently not before 700
CE. The codex was restricted to the non-liturgical use of the Bible, while liturgical
scrolls continued to be used for religious purposes in the Middle Ages. These
liturgical scrolls were written without vowels and accents, in accordance with the
writing rules laid down in antiquity by the rabbis. Most of those rules are also
reflected in texts that were not used in the liturgy, certainly in the carefully
written codices, while the latter texts were vocalized and accented and contained
the complete Masoretic apparatus. There are no recognizable qualitative
differences between these scrolls and codices regarding their content.
2. Writing Practices
Martin, Scribal Character; Oesch, Petucha; id., "Textgliederung im Alten Testament und in
den Qumranhandschriften," Henoch 5 (1983) 289-321; E.J. Revell, "Biblical Punctuation and
Chant in the Second Temple Period," JSJ 7 (1976) 181-98; G.H. Wilson, The Editing of the
Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 93-138; Yeivin, Introduction, 3649.
The writing practices governing the copying of biblical books in scrolls

and codices developed over many generations. One group of writing
traditions is known from the Judean Desert scrolls, and a later one is
reflected in Masoretic codices and the practices described in the Talmud
and collected with additions in Massekhet Sefer Torah, from the early postTalmudic period (8th or 9th century), and with more details in Massekhet
Soferim? Massekhet Soferim contains halakhot, "religious instructions,"
pertaining to such matters as writing materials, the skin and its
preparation, the scribes, the measurements of the sheets, columns, lines,
and margins, the correction of errors, the writing of divine names,
matters of storage, and the reading of the books.
7
For the latter, see the edition by Higger* 1937 (p. 191). For the former, see id., Seven
Minor Treatises, Sefer Torah; Mezuzah; Tefillin; Z,i;ith; 'Abadim; Kutim; Gerim (New York:
Bloch, 1930); see also the translation by A. Cohen, The Minor Tractates of the Talmud, vols.
1-2 (London: Soncino, 1965).
196
The following analysis concentrates on the early finds-principally

from the Judean Desert-of all the witnesses of the biblical text,
including proto-Masoretic texts. Several of the practices to be analyzed
below have been discussed on pp. 47-54, 59-62 in connection with m. The
writing practices reflected in medieval Masoretic codices are described
by Yeivin, Introduction, Glatzer*, Ginsburg*, and Steinschneider*.
a. Word Division
Driver, Samuel, xxviii-xxx; Ginsburg, Introduction, 158-62; A.R. Millard, '"Scriptio Continua'
in Early Hebrew: Ancient Practice or Modern Surmise?" JSS 15 (1970) 2-15; id., "Were
Words Separated in Ancient Hebrew Writing?" BRev VIII, 3 (1992) 44-7; J. Naveh, "Word
Division in West Semitic Writing," lEJ 23 (1973) 206--8; Revell* (p. 195); Tov, Scr. Prac., 131-5
The overwhelming majority of the Judeari Desert texts (biblical and nonbiblical) use one of two systems for separating words in Hebrew and
Aramaic, employing either word-dividers of some kind (mainly dots) in
texts written in the paleo-Hebrew+ script, 8 or spacing between words in
the texts written in the Aramaic (square) script+. 9 Likewise, in medieval
codices, scribes divided the words by means of spaces, a method
commonly used from the beginning of the 71h century BCE for documents
written in the square script+. On the other hand, continuous writing
(scriptio continua) or that with very few breaks, is attested only in some
texts or groups of texts, probably in order to economize on space, since
the texts use final Hebrew letters, or for aesthetic reasons. 10
On the basis of this evidence, it seems likely that word division of
some kind was also used in the first biblical texts (so Millard* 1970,
Naveh* 1973). However, other scholars claim that the first biblical texts
were written without any word division, as already suggested by
Nachmanides in his introduction to the Torah. 11 This assumption is
supported by both Phoenician inscriptions, which do not contain word
division, and many variants in biblical manuscripts that reflect
differences in word division. These differences, representing different
8
Dots or small oblique strokes were used in almost all biblical paleo-Hebrew Qumran
scrolls, e.g. 2QpaleoLev, 4QpaleoExodl,m ..... plate 2*, 6QpaleoLev, 11QpaleoLeva, as
well as in J.U (plate 17*).
9 In most Qumran texts written in the square script, as well as in 4QpaleoDeutr, words
were separated by single spaces, albeit not always consistently.
10 This system is used in all the teftllin and mezuzot ..... plate 10*; MurGen, MurExod, and
MurNum (same manuscript?), written almost continuously, with minute spaces
between the words; Murlsa; the Greek Qumran texts of the Pentateuch (0]0 IX), as well
as hand A of 8.1-jevXII gr.
11 See the edition of C.B. Chavel, Commentary on the Torah tJy Moshe Ben Nachman
(Nachmanides) Oerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1959) 1.6--7.
197
views on the content of the text, may have been created with the
introduction of word division.- pp. 234-5
However, the assumption that the first biblical texts were written
without word spaces is not supported by the evidence quoted above. The
Qumran evidence shows that the spaces between words were not always
indicated well, causing later generations of scribes to make wrong
decisions on word division.
b. Final and Non-final Letters
J.P. Siegel, "Final Mem in Medial Position and Medial Mem in Final Position in llQPsa:
Some Observations," RevQ 7 (1969) 125-30; N.H. Tur-Sinai,
'mnvm," H/Swn
whspr, krk h/Swn Oerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1954) 3-34.
No distinction was made between the final and non-final forms of any
letters in the early Hebrew script+, and presumably this was also the case
in the first biblical scrolls written in the square+ script. During the
Persian period, final forms of the letters mem, nun,
pe, and kaph
(letters with long downstrokes - Naveh, Early History, 172) gradually
developed but were not used consistently. Final beth and he forms are
also found in some Qumran scrolls. A lack of consistency in the use of
these letters is also reflected in the biblical and non-biblical texts from
Qumran, mainly those written in the QSP+.- p. 103. In these texts, both
final and non-final forms are written at the ends of words. Most of the
instances in which non-final letters are written at the ends of words occur
in monosyllabic words such
Siegel* 1969. Several words
were written similarly in the Torah scroll from the synagogue of Severus
(ch. 2, Table 24 [p. 113]), and one instance is preserved in m: Neh 2:13, mK
"that-were-breached," mQ
Ci1. There is also one instance
of a final form of mem in the middle of a word: Isa 9:6 mK i1::::liC'-,, "of the
increase of ... ," mQ
Several Qumran texts written in the QSP+ also
contain final letters in the middle of the word, such as 1Qisaa XLIII 26 (Isa
52:11)
12 Traditions concerning a lack of consistency in the writing of the final forms of letters
have also been preserved in y. Meg. 1.71d: "In the case of the double letters of the
alphabet, one writes the first ones at the beginning and middle of a word, and the
second <final forms> at the end. If one did otherwise, the scroll is invalid. In the name
of R. Mattiah b. Heresh they have said, '<The letters> m, n, p, k <that appear in two
forms> were revealed to Moses at Sinai.' ... The men of Jerusalem would write
and <sages> did not scruple in this regard.
'Jerusalem' as 'to Jerusalem' (that is,
'north,' was written 'to the north' (that is,
and ]O'n,
Along the same lines,
'south,' was written 'to the south' (that is, lO'n)." Cf. also b. Shabb. 104a; b. Meg. 2b. A
similar use of writing non-final letters in final position is reflected in the tradition of the
three scrolls of the Law found in the Temple Court-+ p. 176, since one of the books was
198
c. Text Divisions
Oesch, Petucha; id., "Skizze"; id., "Formale und materiale Gliederungshermeneutik der
Pentateuch-Handschriften von Qumran," in From Qumran to Aleppo (2009) 81-122; Tov, Scr.
Prac., 143-63.
The Bible text was subdivided with different, sometimes conflicting,

systems in different periods in both oral tradition (small sense units:
hemistichs+ and stichs+ in some poetry units, and verses in other poetry
units and prose) and in written forms (large sense units [sections],
Psalms, and books). In addition, the text of m was subdivided into
chapters. -+ pp. 4-5, 49-50
a. Division into Small Sense Units (Verses.and Stichs)
Among all the Hebrew and Aramaic texts from antiquity and more
particularly from the Judean Desert, the division into units smaller than
section divisions (open and closed sections+) is evidenced only in
Hebrew Scripture.
The division into small sense units probably originated together with the
public reading of Scripture. 13 That reading needed to be punctuated at intervals
smaller than open or closed sections for the sake of the reader and listeners and,
at a later stage, also for the meturgeman. Only the Torah and some additional
segments of Scripture were read in public service, but the existence of
versification in these books and segments must have influenced the creation of
such a system also in the remainder of the biblical books.
The scribes of the Hebrew-Aramaic biblical texts from the Judean Desert did
not indicate small sense units (verses), not because such a procedure had yet to be
developed, but because that practice was initially only oral. The beginning of
verse divisions are visible only in early manuscripts of lfi and ([ from the Judean
Desert. -+ Scr. Prac., 137-40. The indication of these sense divisions in the
translations partly followed the oral traditions for the Hebrew text, and partly the
syntax of the translations and the scribal practices used in the languages of the
translations. In a later period, the ancient oral tradition of verse division is
reflected in the accent+ system of m, sometimes mentioned in the earlier rabbinic
literature, and in the medieval manuscripts of lll.-+ p. 49
called the "ma 'on scroll," after one of its prominent characteristics, namely, the absence
of a final nun in ma 'on and other words.
13 Although the reading from the Torah is mentioned in Neh 8:8, it is difficult to know
when the organized reading in the synagogue service started, but it should probably be
dated to the middle of the second century BCE. -+ C. Perrot, "The Reading of the Bible in
the Ancient Synagogue," in Mulder, Mikra, 137-59. A similar point is made for select
readings from the Prophets and Hagiographa. B. Qidd. 30a attributes the counting of the
verses, and therefore probably also the verse division, to the period of the Soferim.
199
What exactly constituted a verse in prose sections has not been determined
and further research is needed for the different Bible books. 14 Not every verse
contains a logical unit, and sometimes the delineation of a verse in m is
artificiai. 15
The indicating of small text units developed differently for texts written in
prose and poetry. Some poetical units in the Bible were written in different
stichographic systems ...... d. Furthermore, in Isa 61:10-62:9, hemistichs+ (2-5
words) were indicated in lQisaa by small spaces after each hemistich.
It is evident that the divisions into sections (
and verses reflect different
backgrounds, because the former was part of the early written tradition for the
biblical texts and the latter was initially oral. The fact that rabbinic instructions
pertain only to the divisions into closed and open sections+ h b. Shabb. 103b and
Sof 1.15) and disallowed the indication of verses, provides sufficient evidence of
their different background. The indication of open and closed sections almost
necessarily coincided with the beginning and I or end of most verses, but
occasionally the two systems collided when a new section began in the middle of
a verse. Thus, when the section divisions and verse divisions were integrated, it
became apparent that some beginnings of sections were not located between
verses, but in their middle ...... pp. 50-51
Division into Large Sense Units (Sections)

In the great majority of biblical and non-biblical texts from the Judean
Desert, as in most Greek texts from the Hellenistic period, and in earlier
Aramaic texts from the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, the text was subdivided
into meaningful units that were separated from one another by means of
spacing.
Prior to the discovery of the Qumran texts, this system was often wrongly
considered to be characteristic of the transmission of Hebrew Scripture, where
the sections thus indicated were named parashiyyot . ..... p. 48. However, L. Blau
recognized the widespread use of such divisions long before the discovery of the
Qumran scrolls. 16
Two major systems of denoting small and larger sense units can be discerned
in the Judean Desert texts (plates 2*-10*). A modern way of thinking would be to
present the smaller units as subdivisions of larger sense units. However, it is
unclear whether this hierarchical relation should always be assumed; sometimes
the two systems were of equal value, distinguished merely by their position in
the line of the ancient scroll. It appears that scribal decisions on the type of
relation between section units should often, but definitely not always, be
14 For example, the sentence ... C1' ,p:::!. 'i1'1 :!.,.I! 'i1'1 is part of a verse in Gen 1:5, 8, 31,
while it constitutes a separate verse in vv 13, 19, 23, with the probable aim of avoiding
an overly long verse together with the preceding sentence. Further, in Scr. Prac., 141
examples are given of internal differences in m concerning the scope of verses in parallel
passages.
15 For example, Gen 36:3 contains a mere six words of which two are connected with a
maqqeph, and the verse has no etnachta.
16 L. Blau, Papyri und Talmud in gegenseitiger Be/euchtung (Leipzig: G. Fock, 1913) 15.
200
considered ad hoc, made upon completion of one unit and before embarking on
the next. The division into section units was often impressionistic, involving:
(a) a space extending from the last word in the text to the end of the line,
indicating a major division (an open section+ in the Masoretic tradition);17
(b) a space in the middle of the line (closed section+ in the Masoretic tradition),
usually denoting a smaller segment than the one described in a.
In addition, in two paleo-Hebrew texts (4QpaleoExodm, llQpaleoLeva), a
large waw was written in the space between two sections, when the first word of
the second section would have started with this Ietter. 18 Likewise, often a
horizontal line (TTapaypa<j>os, paragraphos) was written between the sections at the
beginning of the line, especially in 1Qisaa.-+ plate 3*, I. 20
The length of the section that is separated from the preceding and following
section units depends on the nature of the literary composition and on the
scribe's understanding. Thus, the story of Ruth in m has virtually no section
divisions, although they are called for at several points in the story, especially
after 1:22 and 3:1. Likewise, the medieval manuscripts of m in Genesis have no
sense divisions between Gen 28:10 and 32:4 or between 41:1 and 44:18.
The subjective and impressionistic system of sense divisions explains the
many differences between parallel manuscripts, both in the Judean Desert texts
and within the medieval Masoretic family. One realizes that the Qumran scrolls
were usually subdivided into more clearly demarcated units than the Masoretic
manuscripts. They often display open sections where the Masoretic manuscripts
have closed ones, and section divisions were often inserted where the manuscripts of m have none. -+ Scr. Prac., 151
In the wake of parallels in other scribal traditions, it may be assumed that
some kind of sense division by way of spacing was already embedded in the
earliest ("original") biblical scrolls. This division would have reflected the views
of the biblical authors (editors), while subsequently variations in sense division
were created during the textual transmission.-+ Scr. Prac., 155
A similar division into content units is found in tU, where sense divisions are
indicated by a paragraph sign named qi;;;;ah (a combination of colons or
sometimes two dots and a long hyphen). A major break is usually indicated by a
space extending from the qi;;;;ah sign at the end of the paragraph to the end of the
line. m, tU, and early sources of dJ 19 often differ with regard to the indication of
these subdivisions, but in spite of these differences they reflect a common
exegetical tradition shared with that of the Qumran scrolls. -+ Oesch, Petucha,
313. The proto-Masoretic+ scrolls display exact identity tom.-+ pp. 48-50
1? In addition, the beginnings of some new sections in the Qumran scrolls were indented
and, in other cases, larger breaks were indicated by the insertion of completely empty
lines, for example, between psalms or couplets.-+ 11QPsa (plate 8*)
18 In such cases, the new section now begins with a word without waw. However, the use
of this waw is not consistent and may have indicated a major division. These paleoHebrew waws also occur occasionally in the margins of texts written in the square script
(4QPsb; 1Qisaa between cols. V-VI; 1QS V 1).
19 8!-:IevXII gr, Pap. Fouad 266, Pap. Rylands Gk. 458 (2"d or 1''century BCE).
B: Copying tile Biblical Text
201
y. Division into Psalms
In the analysis of the different types of spacing between poetical units,

individual psalms comprise special entities in that they are smaller than
books and larger than sections. Each psalm forms a separate unit, the
beginning and end of which are usually clearly indicated in scrolls, not
only in biblical psalms, but also in other poetical units from Qumran
such as 1-4QHodayot. Four different methods for indicating the
beginnings of psalms are recognized: (1) An open section at the end of a
psalm, while the following psalm starts at the beginning of a new line; (2)
An indentation indicating the new psalm; (3) A completely blank line
between psalms-+ plate 8*; (4) A closed section in the middle of the line.
-+ Scr. Prac., 163-4
8. Division into Books
As a rule, each biblical book is contained in a separate scroll among the

Judean Desert scrolls. In scrolls containing more than one biblical book,
spaces were left between successive books. In scrolls containing more
than one book of the Torah, all but the first books usually started in the
middle of a column after several blank lines, as is evident from 4QGenExod3, 4Q[Gen-]Exodb, 4QpaleoGen-Exod 1, and 4QRPc (4Q365). This
pertains also to the Minor Prophets scrolls 4QXIIb, 4QXIIg, and MurXII.20
-+ Scr. Prac., 165-6
d. Stichographic Layout
The tradition of writing poetic texts in a special layout in the medieval

texts of m (-+ p. 61) was preceded by similar procedures in many of the
Judean Desert texts. -+plates 7*-8*. A practice of a stichographic21
representation (a special layout representing the stichs+ and hemistichs+
of the poetic verse) was developed for units written in a system of strict
parallelismus membrorum, which therefore could be represented stichographically. Some poetical books, such as the Major Prophets, reflect such
parallelismus, but not in all chapters, and probably for this reason no
stichographic writing tradition was developed for these books. A
stichographic layout is evidenced in 30 Judean Desert texts of two poems
20 Likewise, according to the instructions in b. B. Bat. 13b, one has to leave four blank lines
between the books of the Torah, and three lines between the books of the Minor
Prophets.
21 The term is used by Kugel, Biblical Poetry, 119-27.
202
in the Torah (Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 32), Psalms (especially Psalm

119), Proverbs, Lamentations, and }ob.22
The stichographic layout of poetical texts reflects a certain scribal
understanding of the poetical structure, while it is unclear to what extent these
layouts also reflect the intentions of the poets themselves. The stichographic
representation of specific texts probably reflects a recognition of the poetical
nature of these units, and not their liturgical use.23
In the Judean Desert texts, there is a special layout for poetical units that is
almost exclusive to biblical texts (including Ben Sira [2QSir and MasSir]), and is
not found in any of the non-biblical poetical compositions from the Judean
Desert, such as the Hodayot.
The following stichographic systems are known: (1) One or two hemistichs
per line, in the latter case without spaces between them (4QPsb on plate 7*); (2)
Two hemistichs (a) or stichs (b) per line separated by spacing; (3) Hemistichs or
clusters of 2-3 words separated by spaces ...... Scr. Prac., 166-78
e. Correction of Errors
Martin, Scribal Character, 154-89; Tov, "Correction Procedures in the Texts from the Judean
Desert," in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations,
New Texts and Reformulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry & E. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden/Boston/
Cologne: Brill, 1999) 232-63; id., Scr. Prac., 178-218, 222-30.
Upon completing the copying, and often while still in the process, scribes
often corrected errors.
All the elements imposed on and changed in the base text of the Judean Desert
scrolls replace that base text. No support has been found for the assumption that
some of the added elements should be understood as variant readings deriving
from an external source, such as another manuscript of the same composition.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the known manuscripts for the marginal
notation of so-called parallel or synonymous+ readings.
22 All biblical units for which special stichographic layouts have been preserved among
the Judean Desert texts are also represented by 27 texts that do not display any special
layout. The background of this divergence is unclear. E. Tov, "The Background of the
Stichometric Arrangements of Poetry in the Judean Desert Texts," in Giving Thanks to the
Lord: Essays on Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honour of
Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday, forthcoming, suggests that the
solution lies in the textual character of the texts. The 27 poetical texts from the Judean
Desert that do not have a stichographic arrangement are not Masoretic, while the 30
texts that do display such an arrangement are both Masoretic and non-Masoretic,
mainly displaying system 2a below. The proto-Masoretic texts are thus transmitted only
in stichographic layout, which may imply that their scribes developed this practice.
23 The special writing of Psalms as poetry could have been related to liturgical chanting,
but on the other hand a Psalms scroll such as llQPsa, which probably represents a
liturgical collection ..... p. 321, is not written in this fashion. Furthermore, the
stichographic representation of Job, Proverbs, Lamentations, and Ben Sira is not
consonant with a possible liturgical background (thus also Oesch, Petucha und Setuma,
334).
203
Source of corrections. Three possibilities come to mind with regard to the

source from which the visible corrections in the base text derived:
The manuscript from which the present copy was copied, consulted either
by the scribe himself or by a subsequent scribe or user.
External sources, possibly because such sources were considered to be
superior to or more authoritative than the base text. ..... pp. 30-31
The internal logic of the first scribe, a later scribe, or a user, without any
reference to a written source. Such corrections could reflect the insights or
afterthoughts of scribes in matters of content, language, or orthography.
Corrections may have derived from more than one source. Tov* 1999
suggested that there is no evidence for an external source for the corrections in
the Qumran scrolls other than the base texts of the original scribes and the logic
of the correctors.-+ pp. 177-8
Correcting Methods. When a scribe or reader corrected or altered the text that
he or a previous scribe had written, various systems of indicating the corrections
were used in the linear text or the interlinear space. Several systems were
employed inconsistently for deleting letters and words, and most scribes used
these systems interchangeably, although some preferred a specific practice: (i)
cancellation dots I strokes, (ii) crossing out with a line, (iii) parenthesis signs
(antisigma and sigma), and (iv) erasure. Scribes preferred cancellation dots or
strokes above and below letters for individual letters and parenthesis signs for
longer omissions (rarely used). For the deletion of complete words, cancellation
dots/ strokes and crossing out with a line are more or less equivalent systems.
The methods used for correcting are known from most Judean Desert texts and
from Sof, ch. 3-5.
i. A marking of cancellation dots/strokes above, below, or both above and
below the letters, or (in the case of added words) on both sides of the word, was
used to omit letters or words already written(-+ plates 4*-5*, line 7). For example,
Isa 19:5
Isa 35:10
Isa 36:7
1Qlsaa
m
1Qlsaa
m
1Qlsaa
m+
::J.i1n'
::J1n' (=correction in 1Qlsaa) it will dry up
(cf. plate 3*, line 27)
(=correction in 1Qlsaa) they shall attain
;,nntDn iHi1
'J::l"; cf. 2 Kgs 18:22
at this altar you must worship, iri jerusalem
,,nntDn ;,m
'J::l"
(=correction in 1Qisaa; cf. 2 Chr 32:12 nt+, 1\J)
Sometimes a new word is written above the word that is replaced.

i11i1'
Isa3:17
1Qlsaa
':liM
'J1il(
Isa 3:18
1Qlsaa
;:7.,;:7.".
':liM(= correction in 1Qlsaa)
The practice of canceling elements by means of dots is also reflected by the

extraordinary points in m.-+ pp. 51-2
ii. Crossing out with a line (cf. Sof 5.1), sometimes accompanied by the
addition of the correction above the line. For example,
204
Isa 12:6
1Qisaa
n:JiD1'
'Ji1
inhabitant
m+
Shout and sing, 0 daughter of Zion.

n::ltv1' 'Ji1
( = } and the correction in 1Qisaa)
Shout and sing, 0 inhabitant of Zion.
iil(i1J
Isa 21:1
1Qisaa
1(:::1
(p.m.= 5)
terrible
m+
Dan 8:1
It comes from the desert, from a far away land.

i11(i1J
1(:::1
(=}and the correction in
1Qisaa) It comes from the desert, from a terrible land.
4QDana i11(iJ pm i1m ,:a[1]

[A w]ord was revealed, a vision appeared.
m
i11(iJ J1Tn (=}50 and the correction in 4QDana)
iii. Parenthesis signs. Omission of words .by enclosing the elements to be

omitted, and in one instance, to be added, with an avT(m yf.La, antisigma [ ) ] and
a( yf.La, sigma [ ( ]. This practice is known from the Greek scribal tradition as
TTEpL
"writing around" and from the Masoretic tradition as inverted nunim.
--+ p. 51. In the Qumran texts, these signs occur rarely. E.g., in llQpaleoLeva they
are indicated around the text of Lev 20:23-24, which had been written erroneously in the middle of 18:27.
iv. Erasure. The technique of erasing letters, words, or a complete line in
leather scrolls with a sharp instrument (termed iiJ or iiJ in rabbinic literature) is
known from many texts. Since the erasure did not completely remove the letters,
faint traces can often be discerned The erased area was sometimes left blank, and
at other times letters or a word were written in or above that area.
v. Supralinear+ addition of a single letter or letters, a word or words replacing
a linear word. This method, recognized by y. Meg. 1.71d, is used frequently in
1Qlsaa (see many examples in ch. 2, Table 22 [pp. 105-6] and a complete list for
1Qisaa in Kutscher, Language, 522-31, 555-8; --+plates 3* and 4*). Such additions
occasionally continue into the margins and also vertically, alongside the text
(lQisaa, cols. xxx, XXXII, XXXIII-+ plates 3*-5*), and even below the text, in reverse
writing (4QJera Ill). Cf. also the details added in the margins of o::N (plate 24*).
Several examples of added letters have been preserved in m in the form of
suspended letters.--+ p. 52
vi. Reshaping letters-in attempting to correct a letter, scribes sometimes
reshaped its form into that of another letter, for example, in 1Qisaa 7:11:
';il(tv (original 'aleph of ';11(1( changed to ';il(tv = m);
(= m) probably changed
from
Many of the texts from the Judean Desert contain a relatively large number of
scribal interventions such as described here, some as many as an average of one
scribal intervention in every four lines of text (1 Qisaa). However, according to
Talmudic sources, texts may be used only if they include less than a certain
number of corrections, either two or three per column (b. Menah. 29b) or between
one and three (Sof 3.10). According to these criteria, many of the Qumran biblical
scrolls would not have passed the scrutiny of the rabbis.
205
f. Scribal Markings
The texts from the Judean Desert, especially those from Qumran, contain
various scribal markings, some of which recur often in biblical as well as
non-biblical texts. Beyond the signs mentioned in e, g and the paragraphos+, other markings, not all of which are understood, are found
almost exclusively in the margins of compositions written in the QSP+,
especially in 1Qisaa (-+plates 3* and 4*) and 4QCantb. They include
paleo-Hebrew+ characters, e.g. in 1Qisaa and 4QCantb, and an "X" sign in
1Qisaa and other sources, drawing attention to issues in the text. -+ Scr.
Prac., 178-218, 361-5 (Figures)
g. Writing of Divine Names

The divine names were written in a special way in many Hebrew
Qumran texts. These practices reflect reverence for the divine names,
considered so sacred that they were not to be written with regular
characters lest an error be made or lest they be erased by mistake. An
additional purpose may have been a warning against pronouncing the
divine name. -+ Scr. Prac., 218-21, 238-46
(a) Paleo-Hebrew+ characters in texts written in the square+ script,
mainly in non-biblical texts, but also in 7 biblical texts exemplified for
24 38 (Isa 44:6);
+ suffix 24 36 (Isa
4Qisac: ii,ii" 6 6 (Isa 11:9);
44:5);
9 i 25 (Isa 22:12).
(b) Four dots (named Tetrapuncta) in texts written in the square script+
represent the Tetragrammaton+, mainly in non-biblical texts, but also in

4QSamc, e.g. 1 3 (1 Sam 25:31); 1Qisaa XXXIII 7 (Isa 40:7; plates 4*--5*, line
7) and XXXIV 15 (Isa 42:6), in both cases supralinear+ corrections.
(c) A dicolon ( : ) followed by a space is systematically placed before
the Tetragrammaton (written in t}:le square script) in 4QRPb (4Q364) ...... p.
56,n. 75
h. Breaking up of Words
Words are often broken up at the end of a line (split between lines) in the
early Hebrew script+ ..... plate 1*, and likewise in biblical scrolls written in
the paleo-Hebrew script.-+ plate 2*. For example, 11QpaleoLeva, col. III:
ii/,ii",
:l/:::l,
The breaking up of words in tefillin and
mezuzot was apparently due to considerations of space.-+ pp. 218-19 and
plate 10*. This practice was not used in texts written in the square+ script
and was forbidden by Sof. 2.1.
206
3. Scripts
N. Avigad, "The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents," ScrHier 4
(1958) 56-87; M. Beit-Arie, Specimens of Mediaeval Hebrew Scripts, val. I, Oriental and Yemenite
Scripts (Heb. with Eng. foreword; Jerusalem: Israel National Academy of Sciences, 1987);
S.A. Birnbaum, The Hebrew Scripts (Leiden: Brill, 1971); F.M. Cross, "The Development of
the Jewish Scripts," in Essays in Honor of W.F. Albrixht (1965) 133-202; D. Diringer, "Early
Hebrew Script versus Square Script," in Essays and Studies Presented to S.A. Cook (ed. D.W.
Thomas; London: Taylor's Foreign Press, 1950) 35-49; R.S. Hanson, "Paleo-Hebrew Scripts
in the Hasmonean Age," BASOR 175 (1964) 26-42; id., "Jewish Palaeography and Its
Bearing on Text Critical Studies," in Maxnalia Dei: The Mixhty Acts of God. Essays ... in
Memory of G.E. Wright (ed. F.M. Cross & W.E. Lemke; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976)
561-76; id., "Paleography, The Script of the Leviticus Scroll," in Freedman-Mathews,
Leviticus, 15-23; M.M. Kasher, The Script of the Torah and Its Characters, I, The Torah in Juri and
Ashshuri Scripts (Torah Shelemah 29; Heb.; Jerusalem: Bet Torah Shelemah, 1978); M.D.
McLean, The Use and Development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Ph.D.
diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1982 [University Microfilms]; S. Naeh, "The
Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought (A): The Traditions Concerning Ezra's Changing of
the Script," Leshonenu 70 (2008) 125-43 (Heb.); J. Naveh, "The Development of the Aramaic
Script," Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, V.1 Oerusalem: Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1970) 1-69; id., "Hebrew Texts in the Aramaic Script
in the Persian Period?" BASOR 203 (1971) 27-32; id., Early History (1987); id., On Sherd and
Papyrus: Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic
Periods (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992); J.P. Siegel, "The Employment of Paleo-Hebrew
Characters for the Divine Names at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources," HUCA 42
(1971) 159-72; N.H. Tur-Sinai, "ktb htwrh," HBwn whspr, krk hBwn Oerusalem: Bialik
Institute, 1954) 123-64; A. Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script (Heb.; Jerusalem: Karta, 1991).
a. Background
Paleography, the discipline that deals with the development of writing,
pertains to many aspects of the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, in
particular to the following two:
(a) On the basis of external sources, especially those bearing dates,
such as coins and inscriptions, it is possible to describe the development
of written documents including that of the biblical texts, and to date such
texts as those found in the Judean Desert, according to some scholars,
with relatively great accuracy. For example, according to Cross* 1965, the
Qumran texts written in the square script can be divided into three main
periods: i. 250-150 BCE (archaic script); ii. 150-30 BCE (Hasmonean script);
iii. 30 BCE-70 CE (Herodian script). Generally speaking, C-14 examinations
(-+ pp. 98-9) have confirmed the paleographical analysis.
(b) An examination of similarly shaped letters makes the interchanges
of similar letters, such as those found in all witnesses of the biblical text,
more understandable.-+ pp. 227-34
207
b. Change of Script
Over the generations, the biblical books were written in two different
scripts, at first in the early Hebrew script+(-+ plate 31*) and later in the
square script-+ plate 32*, which developed from the Aramaic script. The
late books were apparently written directly in this script. These two
scripts are indicated with different names in ancient sources.
(1) Originally, the biblical books were written in the early Hebrew script,
which developed from the proto-Canaanite script in the lOth or 9th century BCE. In
Talmudic sources, this script was given the name ro'e;> (fll(1),), that is, "broken"
or "rugged," on account of the rabbis' negative opinion towards it; see b. Sanh.
22a (cf. y. Meg. 1.71d): "The Torah was originally given to Israel in this <Assyrian,
square> script. When they sinned, it became fll1, <see above>." It is not
impossible that this negative opinion also derives from the fact that the
Samaritans use a form of the Hebrew script. Other names given to this script are
da 'a;> ("pricking" or "sticking"?), probably representing a corruption of fll(1)1,
rather than reflecting the original term, and libuna 'ah ("well-balanced"?), for
which see b. Sanh. 2lb.
No
biblical fragments written in the early Hebrew script have been
preserved, 4 but Qumran yielded various texts written in a later version of this
script, named paleo-Hebrew and evidenced in fragments from the late 3'd or early
2nd century BCE onwards. Likewise, many manuscripts of lll written in a later
form of the paleo-Hebrew script have been preserved. A paleographical
examination of the latter manuscripts revealed that they reflect the script of the
2nd century BCE, even though they were written in medieval times ...... p. 77
For the Qumran biblical fragments written in the paleo-Hebrew script, seep.
97 and for the writing of the divine names in that script, seep. 205.
(2) The changes occurring in the script of the Hebrew language (-+ Naveh*
1987, 112-24) involved also the writing of the Scripture scrolls. At some stage
during the Second Temple period, a gradual transition occurred from the
Hebrew to the Aramaic script, from which a script developed that was exclusive
to the Jews, called the "Jewish script" (thus many scholars) or the "square script"
(according to the form of the letters). 25 According to Talmudic tradition, this
script was introduced by Ezra, who is called in the Bible "an expert scribe" (Ezra
7:6), while other traditions refer in more general terms to the time of Ezra in the
51h century BCE.2 6 This date appears possible but lacks external confirmation.
24 Unless one wishes to consider the silver rolls from Ketef Hinnom as biblical texts.-+ p.
111
25 However, in many ancient texts (e.g. b. Sanh. 21b), it is called the" Assyrian script" due
to the fact that its ancestor, the Aramaic script, was in use in the Assyrian Empire.
26 Mar Zu.tra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: "Originally the Torah was given to Israel in
Hebrew characters and in the sacred <Hebrew> language; later, in the time of Ezra, the
Torah was given in the Assyrian script and the Aramaic language. <Finally,> Israel
selected the Assyrian script and the Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters
and Aramaic language for the hedyo.toth -;:the ordinary people>" (b. Sanh. 21b; cf. b. Meg.
9a; t. Sanh. 5.7; y. Meg. 1.7lb-c). For similar statements, see Origen, Epiphanius, and
Jerome (for references see Birnbaum*, 73-4) ...... Naeh*
208
Naveh* 1987, 234-5 speaks of a somewhat later date, viz., the 3'd century BCE.
After the introduction of the square script, the Hebrew script did not go out of
use.-+ Naveh* 1982, 119-24
4. Orthography (Spelling)
S. Ahituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Bibliml Period
Oerusalem: Carta, 2008); F.l. Andersen & A.D. Forbes, "Orthography and Text
Transmission-Computer-Assisted Investigation of Textual Transmission through the
Study of Orthography in the Hebrew Bible," in Text: Transactions of the Society for Textual
Scholarship 2 (1985) 25-53; Andersen-Forbes, Spelling (1986); Andersen-Freedman,
"4QSamb (1989); Barr, Variable Spellings (1989); F.M. Cross & D.N. Freedman, Early Hebrew
Orthography (AOS 36; New Haven, AOS, 1952); Cross-Freedman, Studies; Cross, ALd;
Donner-Rollig; D.N. Freedman, "The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in
Orthography," Textus 2 (1962) 87-102; Freedman-Mathews, Leviticus, 51-82; D.!\1.
Freedman, A.D. Forbes, & F.I. Andersen, Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992); Ginsburg, Introduction, 137-57; Goodwin, TextRestoration, 27-43; A.R. Millard, "Variable Spelling in Hebrew and Other Ancient Texts,"
JTS n.s. 42 (1991) 106-15; A. Murtonen, "The Fixation in Writing of Various Parts of the
Pentateuch," VT 3 (1953) 46-53; id., "On the Interpretation of the Matres Lectionis in Biblical
Hebrew," AbrN 16 (1973--1974) 66-121; A. Rahlfs, "Zur Setzung der Lesemiitter im Alten
Testament," Nachr. v. d. konigl. Gesel/sch. der Wiss. zu Gott., Phi/.-hist. K/. (Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1916) 315-47; G.B. Sarfatti, "Hebrew Inscriptions of the
First Temple Period-A Survey and Some Linguistic Comments," Maarav 3 (1982) 55-83;
Sperber, Grammar, 562-636; W. Weinberg, "The History of Hebrew Plene Spelling: From
Antiquity to Haskalah," HUCA 46 (1975) 457-87; Young, "Suffix -H"; Z. Zevit, Matres
Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs (ASOR Monographs 2; Cambridge, MA: ASOR, 1980).
toofs: Select orthographic features of m, ill, and the biblical Qumran scrolls
(words, morphological patterns) can be searched in the various programs.-+ ch. 10
a. Background
Orthography (spelling) 27 is the realization in writing of the spoken word
and, accordingly, many words may be represented in different spellings.
Indeed, most languages have used different spellings, at different
periods or in concurrent dialects without any difference in meaning. For
example, many English words are spelled differently in Great Britain
(e.g. favour, specialise) and in the United States (favor, specialize).
Similarly, in Hebrew, there is no difference in meaning between K':l, z
and Ki':l, lw ,nor between
smrym and
swmrym.
When discussing orthography, most scholars do not include morphological
by-forms that would be pronounced differently, such as the differences between
27 Literally, orthography means correct (orthos) writing (graphia) and consequently this
term is a good description of modern practices since, in our times, spelling systems are
determined by national language academies. However, in antiquity spelling practices
were not fixed, and therefore the term "spelling" better describes ancient practices. In
accordance with modern scholarly parlance, we will nevertheless speak about
"orthography."
209
in the majority tradition of the Hebrew Bible and

in many Qumran texts.
- p. 102. However, some scholars extend the coverage of orthography to include
such differences.- Cross, ALQ3, 174-7. The case of ru is a special one because of
the differences between the written form of lli and the oral tradition of the
Samaritans. - p. 75-6
The orthography of the Hebrew language, in common with that of most other
languages, passed through various phases, in particular, in the ever-increasing
which were added to the
use of matres lectionis (the vowel letters
consonantal framework to facilitate the reading. A parallel system used for the
same purpose was the addition of vowel signs in m from the 9th century onwards.
- pp. 39-47. The terms defective and full (plene) orthography refer to alternative
forms of spelling the same word, one without one or more matres lectionis and the
other with the addition of matres lectionis. However, this terminology is often not
precise, since a word can contain both types of orthography at the same timee.g.
(Ps 23:2 m) with the defective spelling in the penultimate
syllable and the full spelling in the ultimate one and
(Isa 32:18
m) with the full spelling in the penultimate syllable and the defective spelling in
the ultimate one.
Although there is little evidence for the early stages of Hebrew orthography,
related Phoenician and Moabite texts, which predate Hebrew evidence, reveal
what Hebrew biblical texts would have looked like in the First Temple period.Cross-Freedman* 1952. In brief, ancient Phoenician inscriptions such as Yehimilk
from the lOth century BCE (Donner-Rollig*, 10) do not indicate the matres lectionis
either in the middle or at the end of the following words (these are supplied in
parenthesis in their Tiberian equivalents):
(=
wsnwtyw), i (=iii, zh),
(=
lpny).
Likewise, in the Hebrew Gezer Calendar inscription (Donner-Rollig*, 182),
the matres lectionis are absent in the middle and at end of the words:
(= C"i1lJiD, stvrym), ni' (= ini?).
At a later stage, matres lectionis were added at the end of words. See, for
example, the Moabite Mesha inscription (Donner-Rollig*, 181):
bnyty ), ii'?'?:J (= ii'?'?:J, blylh ).

In the Hebrew Siloam inscription (end of the 8th century; Donner-Rollig*, 189),
matres lectionis are likewise found in fi.!1al position:
1::1'?1, wyllao; ii1i, zdh; ii':1, hyh.
At the same time, the Siloam inscription also includes forms without medial
vowel letters, such as
(=
hh;>bym ),
(=
'ys).
m:J (=
After the introduction of vowel letters in final position, they were also
introduced gradually in medial position.
b. Different Orthographic Practices in the Biblical Texts
Since there are no preserved biblical texts dating from periods earlier
than the 3rd century BCE, early stages of the orthography of the biblical
books are not evidenced-for the purposes of this discussion, the silver
210
rolls from Ketef Hinnom (p. 111) are disregarded, since they do not
contain a biblical text proper. 28 The description of the spelling systems
thus starts with the 3rct century BCE, although earlier stages may be
reconstructed on the basis of parallels in Hebrew and external sources
mentioned in a.
Over the course of many generations, the orthography of the biblical books
passed through various phases, since these books or parts of them (early poems)
were first written down at a stage when the orthography was still very defective.
With each successive transcription, the orthography of the biblical books was
adapted either fully or partially to the system that was currently in practice in
that period. At the same time, knowledge about the spelling of the earliest
biblical manuscripts (the "original" texts?) is completely hypothetical .....
Goodwin*, since our information is based primarily on a small number of
Hebrew inscriptions (-+ Donner-Rollig* and .Ahituv*), rather than on ancient
literary texts. The biblical books that were composed in an early period, and in
particular the ancient poetry, were probably written with a very defective
orthography, which has been reconstructed by some scholars. One such attempt
(Table 1) is reflected in the reconstruction by Cross-Freedman* 1975 (1'1 ed.: 1950)
of the "Song at the Sea" (Exod 15:1-18), which may well be excessively deficient,
but there is no way of verifying any one view.
Table 1
Presumed Original Orthography of Some Verses in Exodus 1529
Reconstruction
;"!,;'!., ;'!i'iDI(
,;"!., iiD
'::>
::>
,:::l:>i, 0,0
:::l:>i,OO
t:l":::l ;'!r:li
[] t:l":::l r:li
[] i:::lJ ,;"!.
;'!r:ln'?r:l iD'I( ;'!W

,r:liD ;"!,;"!.
,,.m ;'!lli:J n:J:>ir:l
t:l":::l ;'!i'
r:ltD ,;"!.
'?m
lli:l []
t:l':::l i'
While the data in Table 1 are reconstructed, in other cases we may take
recourse to real data. The evidence from the period from c. 250 BCE (the earliest
Qumran scrolls) onwards displays differences between scribal schools or
communities as well as between individual scribes, while no source is internally
consistent. We cannot but conclude that the intricacies of orthography were not
28 Their spelling is like that of rn with the exception of the pronominal suffix with a he in
nouns: i1::J::IiD1:1 mi!kaboh, it'?l(J goa/oh (?).
29 Original formulation: Cross-Freedman*, Studies (1950) 50. The table follows F.M. Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of Religion of Israel (Cambridge,
MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1973) 127-31. This type of reconstruction was
first presented by W.F. Albright, "The Oracles of Balaam,"JBL 63 (1944) 207-33.
211
important for early scribes of the Hebrew Bible, nor were they for scribes of other
ancient texts. 30
This Jack of attention to the finesses of spelling reflects one of the aspects of
inconsistency3 1 that characterizes the transmission of the text, but inconsistency
should not be equated with imprecision. Even texts that are inconsistent in
spelling practices may transmit precisely the content of the earlier form of the
text.
In reviewing the history of all presumably authoritative forms of the Hebrew
Bible, we refer to all known sources (them-group, the l.ll-group, Qumran scrolls).
The five preserved stages of spelling development of the biblical text are
described next in their presumed development sequence. The major groups of
orthography practices, starting with the most defective texts, are:
1. 4QSamb is the most defective biblical text known, and therefore

reflects the typologically earliest known biblical source (c. 250 BCE). This
text differs sufficiently from m to not consider it part of them-group; it is
consistently more defective than m. Among other things, it often does not
mark the long /o/ with a waw as in
(= m
1 Sam 16:7),
hammordot (m
1 Sam 20:30), and further it has the old pronominal
suffix for the 3rct person sing. in
'alm6, "his lad" in 1 Sam 20:38 (m
il'm).32
2. m as represented by the proto-Masoretic texts from the Judean

Desert, especially from sites other than Qumran- p. 29, and its medieval
representatives. Within this group a distinction needs to be made
between the relatively defective spelling of most biblical books and the
fuller spelling of the late biblical books.- pp. 213-15
3. Medieval representatives of w..- pp. 89-90
4. Pre-Samaritan texts from the Judean Desert.- pp. 90-93

5. The very full orthography of the texts written in the Qumran scribal
practice.- pp. 101-2
Several Qumran scrolls that cannot be ascribed to any of the above groups
form intermediary stages between the mentioned groups. Thus, most ffi-like texts
30 Thus Millard*, 114-15, concluding that this phenomenon "can now be seen to be part of
a common feature of ancient near eastern scribal practice."
31 The internal inconsistency of m was already noticed by medieval exegetes. See, for
example, Ibn Ezra: "The sages of the Masorah invented explanations for the
<background of the> plene and defective spellings ... " (Saphah Berurah, p. 7, in the
edition of G. Lippmann [Fiirth: Ziirndorffer, 1839; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1967]).
Cornill, Ezechiel, 161 describes the orthography of m in that book as "ganz willkiirlich
und regellos" (completely arbitrary and irregular).
32 This form also occurs rarely (55 times) in m, as in Gen 9:21 i1'?i1M, and is extremely rare in
the Qumran scrolls, in which it usually may be taken as reflecting a feminine suffix. See
Young*. For a full description of 4QSaffib, see Andersen-Freedman* 1989, F.M. CrossD.W. Parry-R.J. Saley, DJD XVII, 220-21, and Freedman* 1962.
212
from Qumran are slightly fuller than m, 33 and therefore typologically later, than
the proto-Masoretic texts from other sites in the Judean Desert: Masada (texts
written between 50 BCE and 25 CE) and the later sites of Wadi Murabba'at, Wadi
Sdeir, Nahal I-:Iever, Nahal Arugot, and Nahal Se'elim dating to the period of the
Bar Kochba revolt in 132-135 CE (texts written between 35 CE and 115 CE).34 At
the same time, a few Qumran texts (4Qisab,d,f) are slightly more defective than m,
but not sufficiently so in order to be considered a typologically earlier stage.
Since the orthographic practice of 4QSamb and secondarily that of m as a
whole is more defective than the practices of the other groups, in accordance
with the development of the orthography of the Hebrew language as depicted on
p. 209, these spelling practices were closer to the assumed original orthography
of the biblical books than that of the other sources.
The discussion is limited to m. For the practices of lll and the QSP+, see pp.
89-90,93, n. 152, and 101-2.
c. Orthographic Practices of them-Group

The relatively defective orthography of m, as reflected in the protoMasoretic texts from the Judean Desert and the medieval manuscripts, is
discussed here somewhat in extenso because of the reasons given in b. In
the period between the copying of the proto-Masoretic texts from the
Judean Desert (Masada, Wadi Murabba'at, Na}:lal I-:Iever, and Na}:lal
$e'elim), written between 50 BCE and 115 CE (-+ p. 29) and that of the
Masoretic codices in the Middle Ages, the orthography of these texts did
not change. These texts are therefore analyzed as one group, realizing
that them-like texts from Qumran are one step removed from this text.-+
pp. 31-2
a. Dating the Orthography ofm on the Basis of External Evidence
Since the development of the orthography of the Hebrew language can be
characterized in general terms -+ p. 209, theoretically one should be able to
determine the date of the orthography of m within this framework, while taking
into consideration the internal differences that exist between the biblical books.
Such attempts have indeed been made by Cross-Freedman* 1952, Freedman*
1962, Andersen-Forbes* 1986, Barr*, and F.l. Andersen in Freedman-ForbesAndersen* 1992, 73-8. According to Andersen-Forbes* 1986, the orthography of
m reflects practices of orthography current between 550 and 350 BCE; these
scholars also suggested the possibility of relating these practices to Ezra. 35 On the
other hand, Freedman* 1962, 102, assigned the orthography of m to the end of the
3'd century or the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, while Barr* 1989, 203 thinks in
more general terms of the period between 400 and 100 BCE.
33 Thus, for example, such well-preserved texts as 4Qlsaa,e, 4QJerc, 4QXIIg.
34 These data are based on DID XXXIX, 351-446.
35 Andersen-Forbes* 1986, 318-21.
213
The use of matres lectionis in m reveals neither the absolute nor the relative
time of the composition of the biblical books, but only the time of their latest
copying that is frozen in m, since a book or section thereof that was composed at
an early period could be represented in !11 by a late copy. For example, we do not
know whether the orthography of Psalm 18 bears evidence of relative lateness of
composition in comparison with the somewhat more defective spelling of the
identical Psalm in 2 Samuel 22 (for a detailed analysis, see Barr* 1989, 170-74).
Nevertheless, it has been found that the books in !11 that were written with the
fullest orthography are generally the books composed at a later period ...... Tables
2 and 3
Internal Analysis ofm

A comparison of the orthography of m with external sources is based on
a comparative analysis of the common characteristics of all the biblical
books and external sources. At the same time, one must be aware of the
differences between the various books of m, described in detail by Barr*
1989. These differences were caused by the personal inclinations of the
individual scribes and by the differences in the spelling practices used
over the centuries. The lack of internal consistency within m may be
described as: (1) differences between the relatively defective orthographic
practice of the majority of the biblical books and the fuller orthography
of the later books (below y, 8) and (2) internal differences within the
various books (Tables 4, 5, and 6).
The differences between the books are exemplified by a comparison of
two parallel texts (Table 2) and by data pertaining to one word (Table 3).
Table 2
The Orthography of Parallel Sections in
2 Samuel23
22
l'i'1i1'
m(2
Sam 23 Ill Chr 11)

1 Chronicles 11
i1tDl'
24
l'i'1i1' 1:::1
i1tDl'
!:ltD ,',,
!:ltD 1'?1
23
l:l'tD'?tDi1
1Ji1 l:l'tD,'?tDi1
25
i1tD'?tDi1
,,,
24
en'?
25
'iini1
26
27
,,,
'?ZJ
...
26
...
27
28
'iini1
'll1pni1 tvpll
nml'i1
en'?
i1tD,'?tDi1
,,,, 1:::1
...
'i,ii1i1
'1'1pni1 tDpll 1:::1
n,ml'i1
In the verses quoted in this table, Chronicles contains eight spellings

that are fuller than those in the parallel section in 2 Samuel.
214
Table 3
The Spellings,,,
I,.,, in
Defective
Genesis-Judges
Samuel
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ruth
Proverbs
Qoheleth
Psalms
Kings
Ezekiel
Minor Prophets
Canticles
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles
0
576
10
15
2
1
1
87
93
3
1
0
0
0
m36
Plene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
8
1
11
261
% of Plene Spellings
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
3.1
25
88.9
100
100
100
In this word, the following books reflect a plene (later) spelling practice: Minor
Prophets, 37 Canticles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles. The plene spelling is the only
one used in the biblical and non-biblical Qumran scrolls, always against m.38
The lack of unity in m is illustrated next by examples of inconsistency in the
spelling of words appearing in the same context (Table 4) or belonging to the same
grammatical category (Table 5), and of unusual spellings (Table 6). This
inconsistency of m also characterizes the textual traditions of tu and the QSP+ as
described in pp. 89-90 and 101-2.
Table 4
Inconsistency in min the Spelling of Words Occurring in the Same Context 39

Judg 1:19
ibid., v 20
iD,,,
iD,;.,
1 Sam 9:13
ibid., v 22
2 Sam 10:16
ibid., v 17
c?n
i19M'?IJ
..... p. 237
1 Kgs 10:18
36 The data have been culled from the BHS module in the Accordance+ program (the
differences with Andersen-Forbes* 1986, 5 are negligible: 575 in Samuel and 260 in
Chronicles). -+ Andersen-Forbes* 1985, 29-34; D.N. Freedman, "The Spelling of the
Name 'David' in the Hebrew Bible," HAR 7 (1983) 89-104
37 The evidence covers the plene spellings in Amos (2 x) and Zechariah (6 x) and one case
of a defective spelling in Hosea.
38 In one instance, the plene spelling of 11QPsa in Ps 122:5 agrees with m.
39 In Tables 4 and 5, defective spellings are recorded first.
215
ibid., v 19, twice
-+
pp. 233-4
2 Kgs 16:7
ibid., v 10
-+
p. 237
Ezek 20:41
ibid., v 34
;:tl)1:;Jp
;:t'l)1:;Jp
;:t'l)ii:;Jp
Ezek 32:25
ibid., v 23
ibid., v 26
Ezek 42:9
ibid., v 8
ibid., v 14
Prov 30:29
ibid.
Table 5
Inconsistency in m in the Spelling of Words Belonging

to the Same Grammatical Category Appearing in One Context
Exod 22:26
ibid.
Jer 51:35
ibid., v 24
Ezek 32:29
ibid., v 30
mK
iih10::l
1i.!l" 1n'-,ow
C'iiD::l
l:l'iiD::l
i1::l
i1::l
''Jl"
''Jli'
Ruth 2:3
ibid., v 5
Full statistical data concerning the representation of the same

grammatical category can be found with the aid of Accordance+ 40 and the
study by Barr* 1989. The inconsistency comes to light in the representation of the feminine plural ending ri- / niin the participle n(i)?t!l(i)p,
q(w).t[(w)t. 41 A computer
shows that it is written with the full
40 The results of the study by Andersen-Forbes* 1986, 11 are different since their sample
covers participles as well as nouns, adjectives, and numerals. Andersen-Forbes list
31.4% for the Torah and 80.2% for the Hagiographa.
41 Barr*, 12 does not consider these spellings inconsistent since he recognized in the text
so-called "block spellings" (a group of identical spellings of a given word in a certain
context) and instances of "rapid alternation" ("where a text passes rapidly back and
forward between two or more spellings"). For example, in the case of n(1)0iD in Numbers
1-3 in m, we notice interchanging spelling clusters of noo and n10iD, arranged in groups
of verses as if the scribe varied purposely: n10iD Num 1:2, 5, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24; norv Num
1:26, 28, 30, 32; n10iD Num 1:34; norv Num 1:36, 38, 40, 42; n10iD Num 3:2, 3, 18, 43.
However, the groups are of unequal size, and sometimes appear only as single
occurrences. It would therefore be difficult to ascribe these features to an overall design.
The phenomena recognized by Barr resemble individual features of playful spelling
216
spelling of the final syllable in 22.41% of all instances in the Torah, while
in 100% of them in the Hagiographa.42
Lack of consistency is also recognizable in several unusual spellings in
m(-+Ginsburg, Introduction, 138-57).
Table 6
Unusual Spellings in m
Nurn 11:11
passim in the
Torah
Josh 10:24
1 Kgs 8:44
Jer 31:34
Ps 102:5
Job 1:21
Neh 13:16
1 Chr 5:30
2 Chr 2:16
Unusual
spelling
Standard m
spelling
Notes
)44
np.
:1f:::t
,..,;,
..... p.237
"l
, .,,:1
The inconsistency of m is particularly striking in combinations of

matres lectionis: for example, in one word the combination of two matres
lectionis can yield four different spelling patterns:45
mpi146
nby likewise appears in m in three different
The plural form of
spellings:
(61x),
(32x),
(4x).
The same applies to the plural form of
mqwm:
(2x),
(11x), nbip9 (4x).
y. Does m Reflect a Spelling System?
Upon consideration of the evidence described in the preceding

paragraph, one cannot represent the orthography of m as consistent or
rather than a system. In the absence of spelling norms, scribes vacillated between some
variant spellings by clustering them inconsistently in groups, but with some design.
42 The orthography of the Hagiographa in this category is matched by that of the Qumran
biblical scrolls (90%) and w. (92%).
43 For a similar case, see Isa 28:12 K1:::lK.
44 Masoretic note: yatir 'aleph . ..... p. 54, n. 69
45 The figures are culled from the Accordance computer program based on BHS.
46 See the discussion of these spellings in Elias Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, 166 in
Ginsburg's edition; Andersen-Forbes* 1986,27.
217
uniform, neither in m as a whole nor in individual books. At the same

time, the existence of special practices in certain lexemes or patterns
cannot be denied. Recognizing these practices, the medieval Masoretes
formulated principles of a larger system which, according to them,
guided the copying of the manuscripts in antiquity; see in particular Elias
Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth. For example, according to this treatise,
nouns were usually written plene, whereas verbs were spelled
defectively-see, for example, the verbal form
in Num 3:40 as
compared with the homographic proper noun
Pekod, in Jer 50:21.4 7
Likewise, according to Elias Levita, the pattern C'"bj?, qe.tolim, is usually
written defectively with regard to the I o I sound: c";i,,, C'::lip, cpni, etc.
According to him, nouns of the '":::1 pattern are usually written plene:
iiliM.
Likewise, Andersen-Forbes* 1986 discovered several spelling features of m
that prove the existence of orthographic practices of some sort in a few words.
For example, the defective orthography of certain words such as
c'?tv1i', and ];"!::> is constant, and so is the consistent plene spelling om'::l (except for
1 Sam 1:3). 48 Further, in many pairs of identical words, the scribes seem to have
purposely chosen a different orthography for each member of the pair. For
example,
Gen 27:22
Num 28:13
Ezek40:21
Qoh 1:6
::lpl!' '?ip '?p;,

]iitDl) jiiDl!1
1::ll':l ;,rv'?rv1 1::ll':l ;,rv1 '?tv

::l:::iO ::l::l10
The most serious attempt to find a system in a specific feature in m is by

Rahlfs*, 339-43 (previously Stade49 ) who recognized a phenomenon that was
described in detail by Barr* 1989, 14, 25-32 as the "affix effect." That is, "when
words have plural terminations or other suffixes added, this often alters the
characteristic spelling away from that found in the absolute singular" (Barr*, 14).
For example, in the books of the Torah,
gdwl is usually plene, while the
defective form '?im, hgdl, with the article, is more frequent than '?m;,, hgdwl
(Barr*, 30).
However, examples of this type do not suffice to establish that the
orthography of m followed an overall system, since they can be countered by
many examples of inconsistency, such as described above.
8. Characterization of Individual Books in
On the basis of data such as those found in Tables 2 and 3, it is customary to

make a distinction between the orthography of the majority of the biblical books
47 Elias Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, 147.
48
For similar observations, see Midrash baser ulyater, published by A. Berliner, Pletath
Soferim, Beitriige zur jUdisclzen Sclzriftauslegung, nebst Midrasch Uber die GrUnde der Defectiva
und Plena (Heb.; Breslau: Shletter, 1872) 36-45.
49 B. Stade, Lehrbuch der hebriiische11 Grammatik (Leipzig: Vogel, 1879) 1.37.
218
and that of the later books (see below). Although generally this characterization
can be maintained, it tends to be an oversimplification since different words and
specific patterns behave contrary to this general tendency.
Andersen-Forbes* 1986, 312-18 claim that the Torah and Kings reflect a more
conservative (defective) orthography than the rest of the biblical books and that
they also contain the greatest degree of internal consistency-in the Torah, this
description applies especially to Exodus and Leviticus. The books with the fullest
orthography are Qoheleth, Canticles, and Esther, followed by Ezra-Nehemiah
and Chronicles. Murtonen* 1953 notes that among the Minor Prophets, Amos is
the most defective, while Jonah is the fullest. The same scholar also recognized
that the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant are more defective (and hence
earlier) than the other segments in the Torah, and by the same token he found
differences between segments of the various Pentateuchal sources.
5. Scribal Traditions
M. Beit-Arie, Hebrew Codicology Oerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,
1981); A.D. Crown, "Studies in Samaritan Scribal Practices and Manuscript History: III.
Columnar Writing and the Samaritan Massorah," BJRL 67 (1984) 349-81; id., Samaritan
Scribes (2001); Tov, Scr. Prac., 261-73.
In the First and Second Temple periods, scribal practices or schools are
likely to have existed, that is, groups of scribes who copied scrolls,
consistently or not, according to certain conventions. The term "scribal
school" implies an organizational structure that may not have existed in
those early days, for which "scribal practice" may be a more appropriate
term. Five groups stand out for antiquity and the Middle Ages.
(1) The Qumran scribal practice.- pp. 100-105
(2) The scribes producing the paleo-Hebrew scrolls.- Scr. Prac., 254-6
(3) The proto-Masoretic texts were probably also copied by a separate scribal
school.- pp. 29-31
(4) The medieval scribes of m. - Beit-Arie* 1978, 1981, 1987
(5) The medieval scribes of ill. - Crown* 1984, 2001
Appendix
Tefillin and Mezuzot from the Judean Desert
J.H. Tigay, "tpylyn," EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1982) 8.883-95; Tov, Scr. Prac., 2568.
In many ways, tefillin and mezuzot from the Second Temple period may be
considered biblical texts comparable to the texts described above. - plate 10*. As
in biblical manuscripts, they display different orthographic practices (QSP+ and
an orthography similar to that of m), and they display a large variety of variants,
many of which are also known from other sources. - p. 112. At the same time,
their function and scribal practices differed from those of the biblical texts:
219
Most tefillin were written on thin leather of inferior quality with a rough
surface and ragged edges, representing scraps of leather left over from hides
used for the preparation of scrolls. The irregular material did not allow for the
writing of even lines, and certainly not the forming of columns (a reality that was
accepted in y. Meg. 1.71c).
Tefillin were not ruled (the lack of such ruling was allowed by b. Menah. 32b;
b. Meg. 18b). Nevertheless, the writing was usually straight.
For reasons of economy, the text was often inscribed on both sides of the
leather, in contrast to that on biblical scrolls .
No spaces were left between words, while final forms of letters were
nevertheless used ...... pp. 196-7
Words were split between lines, as in inscriptions written in the early
Hebrew+ script, and in biblical scrolls written in the paleo-Hebrew+ script,
apparently due to considerations of space, e.g. in 4QPhyl J: r:r /n,
I v., ...... p. 205 and plate 10*
C. Textual Transmission
"The premise of the textual critic's work is that whenever a text is
transmitted, variation occurs. This is because human beings are
careless, fallible, and occasionally perverse." (E.J. Kenney, "History,
Textual Criticism," The New EncBrit, Macropaedia [15 1h ed.; Chicago:
Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1985] 20.676).
Collections of variants: A. Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible Oerusalem: Karta, 1972);
Cappellus, Critica Sacra; S. Davidson, A Treatise on Biblical Criticism, Exhibiting a Systematic
View of That Science (Boston: Gould & Lincoln, 1853 =Edinburgh: Black, 1854) 294-307; id.,
Hebrew Text; Delitzsch, Lese- und Schreibfehler; L. Dennefeld, "Critique textuelle de I' Ancien
Testament, 1," DBSup (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1934) 2.240-56; Eichhorn, Einleitung (4 1h ed.;
Gottingen: Rosenbusch, 1823) I.390 ff.; J. Hempel, "Der textkritische Wert des Konsonantentextes von Kairener Genizafragmenten in Cambridge und Oxford zum Deuteronomium,"
NAWG I, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1959, 10, pp. 207-37; Hendel, Genesis 1-11; J. Kennedy, An Aid to the
Textual Amendment of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1928); Kennicott, Dissertation;
Owen, Critica Sacra; Perles, Analekten; Pisano, Additions or Omissions; L. Reinke, Die
Veriinderungen des hebriiischen Urtextes des alte11 Testamentes und die Ursachen der
Abweichunxen der a/ten u11mittelbaren Uebfrsetzungen unter sich und vom masoretischen Texte
nebst Berichtigung und Ergiinzung beider (Munster: Niemann, 1866); Sperber, Grammar; Tov,
TCU, 181-228; P. Vannutelli, Libri synoptici Veteris Testamenti, vols. I-II (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1931-1934).
-rectronic toor5: Differences between m on the one hand and m and the biblical DSS on the
other are indicated automatically within Accordance+. Differences between m and the reconstructed source text of ll) are indicated in the CATSS+ module.
1. Background
The differences between the textual witnesses described in ch. 2 came

about as a result of copying and transmitting the text, and were created,
consciously or not, by scribes, always inconsistently. -+ Tov, "Inconsistency." Large differences between the textual witnesses, presumably
220
created during the course of the literary development of the books, are
analyzed inch. 7 (e.g. large minuses analyzed inch. 7sl-4).
It has become customary to compare all textual evidence (that is, all the
readings+ -+ pp. 1, 265) with m, but the centrality of m in the textual procedure
does not imply that we take a position regarding its priority.
The processes of textual transmission are exemplified from the various strata
of the biblical text:
parallel texts within m reflecting early textual variations;
internal differences within the m-group among medieval manuscripts and
between the Ketib+ and Qere+ forms;
differences between m and ancient Hebrew sources (w., Judean Desert texts);
differences between m and the reconstructed Vorlage+ of an ancient version.
In the course of copying ancient scrolls, scribes created new readings of two
main types. The first group of readings was created as a result of the textual
transmission itself-such readings are unavoidable in the copying of all texts,
and above all, of ancient texts. The majority of them reflect various types of
corruptions-on pp. 165 and 267, these variants are named genetic+. The
readings of the second group were created intentionally, not as a natural
consequence of the copying processes. The classification is tentative, since often
one cannot be certain about intentions in the analysis of readings.
While the phenomena described below, such as haplography+, dittography+,
and doublets+, are acceptable in textual scholarship, their application to specific
readings is subjective. This subjectivity is natural, since many of the examples can
often be given alternative explanations. The following two examples, in addition
to 1 Chr 11:31 (p. 278), exemplify this subjectivity.
The apparent omission of a consonant in Gen 38:14 m may reflect omission by
way of haplography+ corrupted from the regular use of the root i1"0:l in the
hithpa 'el, reflected here in w. as well as in Gen 24:65 m:
Gen 38:14
O::;lt;\1
She wrapped a veil about her.
w.
cf. 24:65
npm
However, the reflexive use of this verb in the pi 'el in Jonah 3:6 p1D O::;l:1 could be
evidence against the assumption of haplography in Genesis.
Likewise, the following reading in m, which at first glance also seems to be the
result of haplograghy, could, in light of various parallels, point to a special
linguistic custom:S
Gen 19:33
1(1i1
i1"'":J
w.
1(1i1i1 i1"'":J
In accordance with the practice in textual criticism to compare all the readings
and to present a view regarding their originality .... ch. 5-6, many of the readings
discussed below are indicated as "<preferable>", foreshadowing the discussion
50 Gen 30:16; 32:23; 1 Sam 19:10. In all three verses, m reads
IC1;"1:'1.-+ Gesenius-Kautzsch, 126y
IC1;"1
;-r'-,'?:::1, with a
Sebirin+ note
C: Textual Transmission
221
in ch. 6. This subjective indication is usually based on arguments relating to the

context, but these are not given here.
Although some of the differences between textual witnesses reflect errors, it is
not always possible to determine with certainty which of the two readings is an
error. The decision depends upon an evaluation of the context.
2. Differences Created in the Course of the Textual Transmission
In the course of the copying, scribes created variation in (a) minuses, (b)
pluses, (c) interchanges, and (d) sequence differences. In addition, scribes
changed the layout of the texts and embedded their interpretations in the
sense divisions inserted in the text (e).
a. Minuses
When texts are compared, details in one text are found to be lacking in another
one. In such cases it would be natural to speak of omissions and additions, but
such terminology requires precise knowledge about the direction of the
phenomenon. For this reason, a more neutral terminology was devised taking m
as a point of departure. In the quantitative comparison of m with other texts,
elements are described as either a plus or a minus of m.
Below are examples of unintentional (erroneous) omissions of a letter I letters,
a word/words, or even paragraph(-.. p. 329, n. 2).
a. Random Omissions
Gen4:8
m
lli
,,nil( '-,::Jii '-,1:( rP iOI:(',

Cain said to his brother Abel. And when they were
in the field ... (= ([ 0 ). NJPS: "Abel ... and when"
iiitv::J t:m,'ii::J 'ii', i11iDi1
,,nil( '-,::Jii '-,1:( rP iOI:(',
iiitv::J t:m,'ii::J 'ii',
11.
(... '-" ([Ps-J N 5 D)
Cain said to his brother Abel: "Let us go out to the

field." And when they were in the field ... = NRSV
It appears that some words in m were omitted (note the pisqah be 'em15a' pasuq+ in
m)-perhaps the same words as those of w. and the versions-since m does not
state what Cain actually said. -.. p. 50
Lev 26:19
m+
11 QpaleoLeva
111:(, ... (= w. '-") <preferable>

... and your earth like copper
iiiDm:;,
iim:;,
111:(, ...
... and your earth like ... ? (letter omitted)

1 Sam 17:23
Ezra 2:25
mK
milloo
mQ
from the caves (?) of the Philistines

(= ([ D; = 5) <preferable>
from the ranks of the Philistines
mii:(::J, iii':::l:;l t:l'i-? 11'ip
the sons of Kiryat- 'A rim, Kephirah, and Be 'erot

ul.ol. Kapw8wpLil (= mM 55 5 D and Neh 7:29)
t:l'ill' 11'ip
<preferable>
the sons of Kiryat- ye 'arim
222

-+
Judg 16:2 (p. 11); 1 Sam 2:20 (p. 124); 1 Sam 13:1 (p. 10).
Haplography
Haplography, "writing once" (chrAo<:;, "once," and

"writing"), is
the erroneous omission of one or more adjacent letters, clusters of letters,
or words that are identical or similar. In many cases, it is difficult to
know whether we are dealing with haplography+ or with dittography+,
since only by means of an examination of the context can one determine
the nature of the phenomenon. If the longer text is preferable,
haplography is assumed, and alternatively, if the shorter text is
preferred, it probably was created by dittography. Probably there are
more cases of haplography than dittography, but this assumption cannot
be proven. In the following instances, haplography is assumed.
2 Sam 22:15
mK
p,::J
n"iD'1 (= cr: so)
He let loose arrows, and scattered them, lightning and
put them to rout. <preferable>
mO
t:li1'1 p,::J
n"iD'1
He let loose arrows, and scattered them, lightning and

He roared (?).
Isa 26:3-4
m
1Qisaa
1:::1 :;, ... (.. ([ o) <preferable>

... for in You it trusts. 4Trust in the LORD ...
'i1::J
';"T::J
;"T::l::J '::l ... (-
... for in You

Ezek 7:21-22
mK
S)
in the LORD ...
'n1::JO;"T1 22 il""m ... 1nm1
I will
mO
4 Trust
him ... and they shall defile her. 22 1 will turn

<masc. suffix> <preferable>
The masculine suffix is required by the context. For the feminine form, cf. v 22
(cf. p. 54 for the vocalization of the Ketib-Qere).
y. Homoioteleuton, Homoioarcton (Parablepsis)
The phenomena of homoioteleuton, "identical ending" (oj.l.OLo<:;,

"identical," and
"end"), and homoioarcton, "identical begin"beginning") refer to the erroneous
ning" (oj.l.oLo<:;, "identical," and
omission of a section influenced by the repetition of one or more words
in the same context, appearing in an identical or similar way. In these
cases, the eye of the copyist jumped from the first appearance of a word
(or words) to its (their) second appearance, resulting in the intervening
section being omitted from the new text, together with one of the
identical elements. Scholars often distinguish between homoioteleuton,
when the identical element(s) presumably occurred at the end of the
omitted section and homoioarcton, when the identical element(s)
presumably occurred at the beginning of the omitted section. However,
223
this distinction is often very complicated. Without distinguishing

between the position of the omitted section, both phenomena are
sometimes jointly called parablepsis (scribal oversight). In the examples
that follow, the identical elements are presented in italics.
Josh 21:35-38
... mo1p
...
... 1:1
l:l'i.V
(=
l:l'i.V
<L; = 5)
with its pastures four towns; 36 and from the tribe of

Reuben ... 37 Kedmot ... with its pastures four towns;
38 and from the tribe of Gad
Because of homoioarcton, vv 36-37 were omitted in several manuscripts (among
them L) and printed editions of mas well as in manuscripts of ([and D.
1 Kgs 8:16
m+
m'ii'? 111:::J.
CiD
r11'i1'? n':::J.
... 'nin:::J.
'O.!l '?.IJ (= 5 in Chronicles)
I have not chosen ... for building a house where My
name might abide, but I have chosen David to rule my
people Israel.
m
mn:::J.
l:liD
n,'ii'-, n':::J.
... 'nin:::J.
2 Chr 6:5-6
m'ii" c'-,iD,i':::l
'O.!l '?.IJ n1'i1'? 1'11:::J.
'-,.v i'J:J m'ii"
l:liD =
in Kings and
4QKings <preferable>
I have not chosen ... for building a house where My
name might abide, nor did I choose anyone to be the
leader of My people Israel, 6 but I chose Jerusalem
where My name might abide, and I chose David to rule
my people Israel.
2 Chr 6:5-6 mentions the election of Jerusalem as a city and the election of David
as leader, whereas in the second part of 1 Kgs 8:16, the election of David is
mentioned where the election of the city is expected. In other words, while
Chronicles contains both negative and positive pairs, in the parallel Kings text,
only the first element of the negative pair and the second element of the positive
pair have been preserved, the remainder having been omitted by way of
parablepsis. The presumably original (long) text of Kings has been preserved
partially in
as well as in the fragmentary text of 4QKings, frg. 7:
'O.IJ
'?.v
m'i1'?[ 111:::J.
CiD
]oil '?.v
m'ii" c'?tvn':::J.
m'ii['?
".v
1 Kgs 8:41-42
m+
?11:1i1
2 Chr 6:32
?mii
J1.!lOiD'
J.!lO'? <preferable>
for Your name's sake, 42 for they shall hear about Your
great name
J.!lO'? (=
<L D)
for Your great name's sake

Isa 40:7-8
!TI +
C.!li1
1:::J.
c'?1.IJ'? C1P'
7 Grass
LORD
'ii n1i '::l

i:::J.11
iD::l' 7
iD::l' 8
withers, flowers fade, when the breath of the

blows on them; surely man is but grass. 8Grass
224
withers, flowers Jade, but the word of our God endures

for ever. <preferable>
On account of the identical words, the copyist of 1Qlsa3 omitted from vv 7-8 the
section
... ':l, "when ... fade," by way of homoioteleuton. A later hand (note
the different handwriting in plate 4*) completed the lacking words above the line,
in the remaining space at the end of the line, and in the margin.5 1 The same
omission was made independently
-parablepsis in m+ in Judg 16:13-14 (cf.

1 Sam 1:24 (d. 4QSam 3 in ch. 2,
Table 23 [p. 106]), 10:1
and 14:41
Possible cases of homoioteleuton:
Deut 5:29-30 (p. 314), 1 Sam 11:1 (p. 311), and Isa 38:21-22 (p. 310). See Pisano*.
b. Pluses 52
a. Dittography
Dittography, "writing twice" (oL TTOS', "twice," and

"writing"), is
the erroneous doubling of a letter, letters, word, or words. The
components that are written twice are not always identical, since at a
later stage one of the two words was sometimes adapted to the context.
As mentioned on p. 222, the distinction between dittography and
haplography is difficult. By definition, the text without dittography is
preferable:
!TI +
'i1
.tl'OiDi11 ( =
<preferable>
Isa 30:30
then the
1Qlsa 3
then the
Isa 31:6
m+
LORD
'i1
shall make heard
.tJ'OiDi1
LORD
i1iO 1po.tJi1
shall make heard shall make heard.

iiD!!e'? 1::l1iD ( =
<preferable>
Come back to Him whom they have deeply offended.
1Qlsa 3
i1i0 1p'O.tli1
iiD!!e'? 1'::l1iD
Come back(?) to Him to Him whom they have deeply

offended.
Jer 51:3
mK
Let the archer not(?) draw draw ...
mQ
li1i1 lii'
(-
a: s)
Let the archer not(?) draw ...

51 In fact, the original scribe copied a text which now is v 8, whereas the corrector made it
into v 7 by the omission of i::li1, "but the word," through use of cancellation dots+ and
by the omission of 1l":11'?K, "of our God" (at this point, he forgot to mark the omission)
and by adding v 8 above the line and in the margin. - plates 4* and 5*, I. 7. The
Tetragrammaton+ in that verse is indicated by means of Tetrapuncta+.
52 For a special type of plus, see L. Gottlieb, "Repetition Due to Homoioteleuton," Textus
21 (2002) 21-43.
225
Talmon, "Double Readings"; id., "Conflate Readings (Old Testament)," IDBSup, 170-73; id.,
"New Outlook"; Talshir, "Double Translations."
A doublet (lectio duplex, double reading, conflate reading) is a type of

redundancy created by the combination of two or three different
(sometimes synonymous+) readings either in juxtaposition or in close
proximity. These doublets sometimes resulted from an erroneous
juxtaposition of elements, but in other cases they grew out of a conscious
desire to preserve alternative readings.
Some doublets were probably created when interlinear or marginal
elements-possibly corrections-were wrongly copied as part of the
running text. -+ p. 202. This could have happened in 1Qisaa 36:11 (col.
XXIX 15-16), where
"to us," is written in the margin in the following
way: ..... plate 3*, line 16, left margin
1iD1
Ti:::l.tll:l.tl
l:l'i:::lii1
i1n'nilm',
i:Jin
l:l'.tl01iD
to destroy it. 11 Then Elyakim, Shobna', and Yoah said to him: "Please,
speak to your servants <in the margin: to us> in Aramaic, for we
understand it and do not speak these words in the hearing of ... "
Negligence in the copying of this text (the marginal
is written very close to
the words in the column itself) 53 could have. created a hypothetical doublet l:l.tl
Ti:::l.tl, "to your servants to us." A doublet such as this is not attested, but
similar instances are documented in the textual witnesses, in cases in which a
presumed first stage has not been preserved, such as in lQisaa.
In most instances, the two components of the doublet were simply

juxtaposed by way of harmonization+. For example,
2 Kgs 19:9
nt+
Isa 37:9
m+
n',iD'1 :::liV"1 (=
he again
sent messengers
n',iD'1
when he heard it, he

lQisaa
n',iD'1 :::l1iV"1
sent messengers
(=
when he heard it, he again sent messengers <doublet>

The reading that lies at the basis of lQisaa
in Isaiah added a detail that is
also found in the parallel text in 2 Kings.
Jer 52:34
m+
, .. n
'?::l
1:11" 1l) 101':::ll:l1' i:::li
an allotment for each day, to the day of his death, all

the days of his life <doublet>
EL')
EW')
arrE'8aVEV
1:11" 1l) 101':::ll:l1' i:::li
53 The marginal addition of

"to us," should be taken as either a correction to
C.ll,
"to your servants," or as a corrective supplement to
where m has
"to us,"
while the parallel verse 2 Kgs 18:26 !H has
226
an allotment for each day, to the day of his death

2 Kgs 25:30
m+
1'n
'-,::>
101:::1 c1 i:Ji (= lfi)
an allotment for each day, all the days of his life

Both parts of the doublet of m-Jeremiah ("to the day of his death I all the days of
his life") are found in different places in the textual traditions of Jeremiah and
Kings, and they are equally acceptable. The same readings also interchange in 1
Sam 1:11 between m ("all the days of his life") and lfi ("to the day of his death").
In other cases, components of the doublet were combined in the text

in various ways, creating a new context.
In the following example, the thematically important words c::n;,, "the
guards," and Clm, "the people," were combined, since both of these words are
referred to in the context
/c::n'-,1 in 2 Kgs 11:4, 6, 11 and fiN;"! C.!.l, "the
people of the land," in v 14). In 2 Kings, the words were juxtaposed without any
grammatical connection, but in 2 Chronicles tl)e text was changed according to
in the chapter and linguistic usage in general. A similar
the usage of
connection was made in lfi ([ S D in 2 Kings.
2 Kgs 11:13
Cl.t'ii
ffi+
'-,1p nN ;,'-,nv .!.lOtDn1 (= lfi*)
When Athaliah heard the noise of the messengers the

people ... <sic> <doublet>
2 Chr 23:12
!lt+
l'-,o;, nN c'-,'-,;,o;,1
Cl.lJii '-,1p nN 1;,'-,nv votDm
When Athaliah heard the noise of the people running

(the messengers?) and praising the king <adapted
doublet>
In this, as in many other instances in m, there is no textual evidence in

which only one of the components of the doublet has been preserved.
Such is also the case in the following example, in which both parts of the
doublet appear in min adjacent verses.
1 Sam 4:21-22
m+
np'-,ii
'-,NitD'O i1:J::l ;,'-,J ioN'-, i1:J::l 'N i.!.lJ'-, Nipm
'-,NiiD'O i1:J::l ;,'-,J iONn1 22 ;"TtD'N1 ;,on '-,N1
'::> (-lfi) <doublet>
She named the boy Ichabod, saying: "The glory has

departed from Israel," because the Ark of God has been
captured and because of <the death of> her father-inlaw and her husband. 22 She said: "The glory has departed from Israel, for the Ark of God has been captured."
..... Judg 6:3 (p. 329); 1 Sam 2:24 in 4QSam 3 lfi*.
Doublets are also recognizable in the combination of morphemes that

seem to be mutually exclusive, usually within one word.
Josh 7:21
2 Kgs 15:16
lsa 9:12
Isa 36:19
lsa 51:9
m
m
m
1Qisa3
Doublet
Components
ii'n1i;:TiJ
(d. 1Qisaa 1;"1;:)0;'1)
N'::l1
+ "vNiJ
ii'n1i;:T + mi;:riJ
+
;:,1 (m) +
+
227
On the other hand, it is not impossible that some of these examples reflect a
linguistic characteristic rather than a textual phenomenon (thus GeseniusKautzsch, 127i).
c. Interchanges
Many types of incidental changes were inserted in the course of the

textual transmission of the text, both in single letters and in complete
words. They are referred to here as "interchanges," implying lack of
intention, although some of them may have been intentional. The
direction of the change is often not known. The "interchanges" to be
recorded below should be viewed together with the minuses and pluses
( a, b) and the sequence differences ( d). This section focuses on
interchanges in single letters, while more comprehensive changes are
adduced in 3 ("readings reflecting content changes"). The latter
phenomena are probably intentional, while most of the developments
described in this paragraph( 2) are incidental or unintentional.
c.i Interchange of Similar Letters
In the following analysis, an attempt is made to classify the various types

of differences between textual witnesses, which are often presented as
"changes."
a. Graphic Similarity
Delitzsch, Lese- und Schreibfehler, 81-123; Kennedy*, 34-113; Macuch, Grammatik, 28-48;
Perles, Analekten 1.50-61, II.28-42; Sperber, Grammar, 234-636; Talmon, Text (2010) 125-70;
Tov, TCU, 195-205; id., Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999) 301-11; F. Yodel, Die konsonantischen
Varianten in den doppelt iiberlieferten poetischen Stucken des massoretischen Textcs (Leipzig:
Drugulin, 1905).
In ancient sources, many letters were interchanged because of difficulty

in deciphering the script due to unclear handwriting or roughness of the
surface. 54 Most of these interchanges were created by the misreading of
similarly formed letters in both the early Hebrew+ and square+ scripts.
When examining the interchange of similar letters between mand the Vorlage+
the direction of the interchange is unpredictable.-+ Tov* 1999. Thus, a similar
number of interchanges between daleth and resh are found in either direction for
every biblical book. A decisive majority of the interchanges between
and m
pertain to i I 1 and 1I', while other interchanges are far less frequent. However,
54 Linguistically close words and roots present a different type of interchangeability, such
as often discussed by medieval Jewish grammarians. -+ I. Eldar, "An Ancient Genizah
Treatise on Interchangeable Letters in Hebrew," Tarbiz 57 (1988) 483-510 (Heb. with
Eng. summ.).
228
yod and waw interchange more frequently in a few late biblical books, probably
because these two letters were more similar in the last centuries BCE than before.
(i) Graphic Similarity between Letters in the Early Hebrew Script
In the manifestations of the early Hebrew script+ as well as the later

paleo-Hebrew+ and Samaritan+ script, we note a graphic similarity not
only between letters that are similar in the square script+, such as 1 I 1,
but also between letters that are dissimilar in that script, such as n /'t(,
':l I", J lr::J
and to a lesser extent also J
1 I :::J..55-+ plates 17*, 31 *
niN.
Gen 46:16
m
aJ
2 Sam 2:9
(= ([0 Ps-J Nand w. 5

(et sim.)
E,sbon
Thasoban
the Ashurite
the Thasirite
'i1tDN.i1 (= ([)
eaaLpl
.,,tDni1
N1i1N. ( = aJMSS D) Ahava
8ouE
Thoue
N1i1n
Ezra 8:21,31
-+
Judg 9:31 m i10in:::l I i101iN.:::l BHS (emendation+, cf. v 41; = NRSV, NAB).
';l
Exod 14:2
(sim. v 9)
m+
rii"r:T;:T (':l
I"
( = lll) <preferable>
(be fore Pi-) hahiroth

aJ*
(anEvavn)
Enau>..Ewc;
(before) the encampment

(':l is probably not reflected in aJ)
Haha,seroth I the encampment(s)
-+
See also an emendation+ in Isa 11:15 (p. 332).

J lr::J
2 Sam 23:35
':::liNi1 '"W;l ',oi::l;"T
(- ([D)
the Carmelite, Pa'arai the Arbite

1 Chr 11:37
':::llN J:::l
',oi::l;"T
(- aJ ([D)
the Carmelite, Na'arai son of Ezbai
(ii) Similarity between Letters in the Square Script
Many Qumran texts show a conspicuous similarity between 1 I", 111,

nlil, and also between other letters that are less frequently
confused. Actually, in several texts such as llQPsa -+ plate 8*, it is very
55 See the exposition in b. Shabb. 103b and the examples of S.D. Luzzatto, Erliiuterungen
(Lemberg: Menkes, 1876; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1969) 127 (on Ezek 3:12); Talmon*
2010; Macuch*.
229
difficult to distinguish between waw and yod, especially when they are
joined to other letters. 5 6 -+ plate 32*
The most frequent interchanges are exemplified below. See further i /1
and i / (Ps 72:9, p. 334).
1/1
Gen 14:14
m
J.U
Gen 22:13
m
J.U
p"'!,:1
he armed (?) his followers
1::>m
p11
he crushed(?) I mustered (cf. a>) his followers
1'nP:::ll:::lO:::l
i1Ji11
(= ([o;., D)
He looked up and there was behind <him> a ram
caught by its horns in a thicket.
i1Jii1
(= mMSS a> ([Ps-J N 5)
<preferable>
He looked up and there was a (literally: one) ram
caught by its horns in a thicket.
The majority reading of m is difficult in the context since there is no personal

pronoun after
Undoubtedly,
was corrupted to
2 Sam 22:43
!TI+
Ps 18:43
c:l'c:l::> (=a> ([ 5 Din Psalms) <preferable>

Like the mud in the streets, I crushed them.
Like the mud in the streets, I emptied them.

Isa 9:8
m
1Qisa3
Jer 2:20
mK
mQ
1'?::> t:lllii 1ll"'1:1 (=a> 5 D) But all the people knew.

1'?::> t:lllii 1ll1'1
But all the people shouted.
(= ([)
(you said: "I will not) work"(= a> 5 D)

(you said: "I will not) transgress."
-+ p. 86 (several examples); Gen 10:4 (p. 16); 1 Sam 10:27 (pp. 311-12); 2 Kgs
16:6 (p. 58); Isa 33:8 (p. 329); Isa 45:2 (p. 236); Jer 41:9 (p. 276); Jonah 1:9 (p. 238).
Gen 36:39
1 Chr 1:50
!TI+
Prov 17:27
mK
mi ip1
and he who has a cool spirit <preferable>
mQ
nn
precious of spirit
Pa'u (= J.U)
Pa'i (D ([ 5 reflect
-+ Gen 10:28 // 1 Chr 1:22 (p. 16); Gen 49:7 (p. 86); 2 Sam 22:51 K-Q (p. 55); Job
17:10 (p. 35).
Some interchanges of 1/' may reflect a phonological phenomenon rather than
an interchange of graphically similar letters:57
56 See E. Qimron, "The Distinction between. waw and yod in the Judean Desert Texts," Beth
Miqra 18 (1973) 102-12 (Heb.).
230
Gen 36:22
C9'iJ1
.,n
1 Chr 1:39
!TI+
09i;n
Jer 48:21
mK
(= 113)
Mopha'at
':1:::1 (= lU and 113 <r: 0 Ps-J N D 113 in Chr)
the sons of Lotan were 1-:Iori and Heman

':1:::11 (=sin Gen)
the sons of Lotan were 1-:Iori and Homan
.,n
mQ
Mepha'at = 1 Chr 6:64, Josh 13:18
Ps 38:20 -+ p. 372.
Josh 11:2
(i1::l,l'::l1 ,i1::l) ( = cr: o; - s)
(m,J:>)
(in the hill country, and in the Arabah) south

of (Kinnerot)
arrEvavn, "opposite." Thus also 15:3 !TI/113.
1J:J
Josh 15:47
mK
mQ
'-,11m
the boundary
the great
(= mMSS 113 <r: S D) <preferable>
The Ketib is undoubtedly influenced by the next word ('-,1:JJ1), while the Qere
presents the correct reading, "and the Great Sea" ('-,mi1 C'in). -+ 2 Sam 23:29 // 1
Chr 11:30 (p. 16)
The forms of these two letters are surprisingly close in many Qumran
scrolls. They are also close phonologically, making it difficult at times to
distinguish between textual and linguistic phenomena.
1 Kgs 12:2
!TI
Cl'::l,'
... Cl'::l,' l'OW:> 'i1'1 ( = 113* 11:43 <r: S)
When Jeroboam heard this ... Jeroboam settled in
Egypt.
2 Chr 10:2
!TI
Cl'::l,'
... Cl'::l,' l'OtD:> W1 ( = <r:; = 113A 0 in
1 Kings)
When Jeroboam heard this ... Jeroboam returned
from Egypt. 58
2 Kgs 5:12
mK
mQ
2 Kgs 20:12
!TI
(= 113 S 0) 'Abanah
(= <r:)
'Amanah
(= <r: 0)
Berodach-Bal'adan son of Bal'adan, king of Babylon
'-,:::1:::1 1'-,0 )1M'-,::l )::l )iM'-,:::1
57 See S. Morag, "Mesa': A Study of Certain Features of Old Hebrew Dialects," Erlsr 5
(1958) 138-44 (Heb. with Eng. summ.).
58 Cf. T.M. Willis, "The Text of 1 Kings 11:43-12:3," CBQ 53 (1991) 37-44.
231
Isa 39:1
(=a: D; = \\J 5 ad Zoe. and

in Kings)
Merodach-Bal'adan son of Bal'adan, king of Babylon
<preferable>
'-,:J:J1'-,o )il('-,:J]:::l jil('-,:J11i9
..... Gen 25:33 (p. 113); Josh 3:16 (p. 58); Jer 29:26 (p. 238)
iOI( i1i1
i1T i01('1 ( = D ad Zoe. and in Chr)
And one said one thing, and another said another.
iOI( i1T1
iOI( i1T i01('1 (= \\J and \\J 5 in Kings)
And one said thus and another said thus.
1 Kgs 22:20
2 Chr 18:19
2 Kgs 3:24
mK
:Jl(10 nl( m:>i11 i1:J 1":J'1 ( = \\J)
mO
and they went in it, attacking the Moabites

:Jl(10 nl( m:>m
(=a: 5 D)
and they hit it, attacking the Moabites
The Ketib (root 1(1:::!?) makes little sense. It probably reflects a simple error.
..... Josh 4:18 (p. 58); 1 Sam 30:30 (p. 7); Jer 23:9 (p. 124)
Josh 19:2
m+
\\JB
KaL KwA.a8a11 et sim.
Josh 21:38
\\J*
Kat
and Moladah
and Koladah
and Mahanayim
KaiJ-LV et sim. and Kahanayim I Kabanim
nl(1
See also an emendation+ in Ezek 3:12 (p. 332).
n/iT
2 Sam 13:37
mK
i1no.v 'AmmVmr (=D)
mO
11i'T'O.V 'Ammihud (= \\J
a: 5)
-+ Prov 20:21 (p. 58). Interchanges between he and

aspects (see pp. 233-4).
also have phonological
(iii) Ligatures
D.M. Beegle, "Ligatures with Waw and Yodh in the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll," BASOR 129
=C)," JBL 82 (1963) 188-94.
(1953) 11-14; R. Weiss, "On Ligatures in the Hebrew Bible
In the handwriting of some scribes, certain letters were joined to form

one graphic entity that could easily be confused with single letters. This
practice is clearly recognizable in those Qumran texts in which ,-l-', i-l-',
and/ or '-l-' are joined into a shape resembling a shin/sin (e.g. llQPsa X 1,
232
on plate 8*). Likewise,

mem (see ibid.). 59
Josh 5:1
1-J
were joined into a shape resembling a final

until we had crossed over
1J,:J.tl 1.tl
t:I,:J.tl 1.tl (= m MSS S D) until they had crossed over
2 Kgs 22:4
!11+
2 Chr 34:9
!11+
Jer 49:19
!11
ibid., 50:44
mK
i1.tl",,N "::l (= D ad loc. and in 50:44)

for I will suddenly make him run away
(mQ
i1.tl,,N "::l (= [27:44] and sad loc. and
in 49:19)
for I will suddenly make them run away
Ezra 2:2
i1",iD
(= )
nN 1Jn"1 ( = )
nN
and let him sum up(?) the money

and they gave the money
',:J:J,T C.tl 1N:::l
( = 5 D)
... who came with .Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah,

Seraiah
Neh 7:7
i1",i.!J
',:J:J,T C.tl C"N:Ji1 (= 5 D)
... who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah,

Azariah
Neh 11:11
1:::1
]:::l ;,p',n 1:::1 i1",iD ( = o)
Seraiah son of Hilkiah, son of Meshullam, son of

Zadok
1 Chr 9:11
!11+
1:::1
1:::1 ;,p',n ]:::l ;,,i.!J1 (= )
and Azariah son of Hilkiah, son of Meshullam, son of

Zadok
(iv) Metathesis
H. Junker, "Konsonantenumstellung als Fehlerquelle und textkritisches Hilfsmittel im
Alten Testament," BZAW 66 (1936) 162-74; N.H. Tur-Sinai, "Skwly 'wtywt
hmqr',"
hgwn whspr, krk hspr (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1959) 106-49; M. Zohari, The Metathesis and
Dual Forms in the Hebrew Language (Heb.; Jerusalem: Karmel, 1991).
Metathesis is the transposition of two adjacent letters. While some

instances of metathesis reflect legitimate linguistic alternatives, 60 others
resulted from textual error. In the following instances, content analysis
must determine which of the two readings resulted from metathesis. In
some cases, such as the first example, the decision is difficult.
2 Sam 22:46
!11
,,:ln"1 1',:J ,::lJ "J:J
aliens have lost courage, they girded themselves out of

their chains (?)
59 A phenomenon similar to that of ligatures is mentioned in m. Shabb. 12.5: "If one intends
writing a heth, but writes two zayins ... "
60 E.g. ;,r.hiZl j;,'?r..r;;; and :::liZl:l /iZl:::l:l.-+ Ibn Jana):t, Sepher ha-Riqmah, 32 (31) (ed. M. Wilensky;
Berlin: ha-Academia, 1930; repr. Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1964) 352.
Ps 18:46
233
1j1n1 1'?:::1
aliens have lost courage, they came out of their chains
(?)
2 Sam 23:12
m+
1 Chr 11:14
1 Kgs 7:45
mK
mQ
;,'?m ;"1l'1iDn ';, il.ll'"1

Zoe. and in 1 Chr)
Thus the LORD wrought a great victory.
;,'?m ;"1l'1iDn ';,l'il.l1"1 (= <r:)
Thus the LORD saved <them> by a great victory.
'iii'\;, c'?:;,;, '?:;, nl'\1
and all the vessels the tent (?)
ii,l'\;"1 c'?:;,;, '?:;, nl'\1 (= <r: 5; = [7:31]) <preferable>
and all these vessels
The Ketib reflects a scribal error.
The following three cases have a special status since the 'aleph,
and 'ayin were not pronounced. -+ below. In such cases, the two
readings were pronounced almost identically (e.g.
in Isa 9:8).
2 Sam 23:31
1 Chr 11:33
D; = <r:)
'Azmaveth the Barhumite
D; = <r:) <preferable>
'Azmaveth the Baharumite
C",(1)n:::l, Bahurim, was a town in Benjamin (cf. 2 Sam 3:16; 16:5; 17:18, etc.).
Accordingly, the consonantal reading in Chronicles, probably to be read as
was probably original.
Isa 9:18
r,l(
1Qisa 3
r,l'\;"1
the land is?

the land is?
m
glory <preferable>
1Qisa 3
(non-existent word)
-+ Deut 31:1 (p. 123); emendations+ in Ps 22:16 (p. 334); Ps 49:14 (ibid.); Prov
30:17 (p. 338).
Isa 13:19
PhonologicalSimilarity
Many readings were created on account of their phonological similarity,

particularly among the guttural and labial letters; the evaluation of the
pair n /ii is difficult, since they are also similar graphically. -+ p. 231. For
interchanges other than those between m and m (ch. 2, Table 17 [p. 89]),
the Qumran texts (ibid., Table 22 [pp. 105-6]), and the Severus Scroll
(ibid., Table 24 [p. 113]), see the following examples:
1 Sam 17:7
mK
mQ
1nm rn1
and the arrow(?) of his spear
1n'Jn rl'1 (= ((D)
and the shaft (?) of his spear
234
1 Kgs 1:18
i1nl)1 (= <r:)
and now (my lord the king)
KQL
au
;mN; 1 (= znMSS ([MSS S)
and you
1 Kgs 12:18
2 Chr 10:18
-+
m
m
(=<I:) Adoram
O";iii:J (= <!:) Hadoram
Deut 23:2 (p. 6).

:J/":1.
Gen 31:40
nip1
01':::l 'n"i1
Thus I was; by day scorching heat consumed

me, and frost by night.
nip1
ill
Gen 31:49
'i1
r:Tf
01':::l 'n"i1
(=
iiVN
([0 Ps-J N)
and Mizpah, for he said: "May the

ill
LORD
watch ... "
iiZ.)I(
'i1
and the pillar, for he said: "May the LORD watch ... "
Exod 15:10
lmi:::l
You made Your wind blow.

ill
ln1i:::l
2 Sam 10:16
nt+
1 Chr 19:16
iiV
Chr)
with Shobakh the commander of the army of
Hadadezer at their head
iTl)iii1
iiV
( = <r: o)
with Shopakh the commander of the army of
Hadadezer at their head
c.ii Different Conceptions of Word Division
Different conceptions of word division+ are occasionally reflected in

witnesses of the same text. As indicated by the Qumran evidence, spaces
between words were often very narrow, a situation that generated some
confusion. 61
Gen 49:19-20
1iDN020 :::lpl) iJ' N1i11 (= ([0 Ps-J N)
but he shall raid <their> heel.

rich
aino<;; 8E TTELpaTEUUEL
20AaT]p, TTLWV QlJTOU
but
20 0J Asher,
ainwv KaTa
his food is
rr68w;.
0 apTO<;; (= 0)
i1JOiV 1iDN 20 t:l:::lpl) iJ' N1i11 <preferable>

he shall raid their heel. 20 Asher, his food
is rich
61 At the same time, words were already separated in the earliest biblical texts (pp. 196-7).
-+ Okh/ah we-Okh/ah, lists 98-102; Tov, TCU, 174-7
235
All the tribal blessings in Genesis 49 start with the name of a tribe, making the
text of m in v 20 very unlikely. Further, within the context of v 19, the pronominal
suffix of "their heel" in IBis more appropriate than "heel" in m.
Ezek 42:9
Job 38:12
m:;,w" :1nnno1
mK
mO
and below(?) these chambers

m:;,w";, nnno1 <preferable>
and below these chambers
mK
1opo intv :1nl'1"
mO
1opo intv:1 nl'1"
Did you ever cause dawn to know its place?

Did you ever cause the dawn to know its place?
The Ketib is not impossible, but the spelling of the second pers. masc. sing. with a
he is very unusual in m.
- 1 Sam 1:24 (p. 84); 10:27 (pp. 311-12); Jer 23:33 (p. 276); 29:26 (p. 238); Hos
6:5(nt/IB<r:5).
Sometimes, one word is separated into two, and two words are joined
together:
Exod 2:9
Deut 33:2
lsa 40:12
iTTi'T 1"'i'T
Take this child <with you>.

:;,"
(cf. b. So.t. 12b)
i'TTi'T 1""i'T
:;,()" "iT
Lo, to you <is> this child.
mK
ntO
!lt+
1Qisaa
ni
":;,"""iT(- 1U IB a:: 0 Ps-J N D) <preferable>
(meaning unclear)
fire of law (?) (= lli
([0 Ps-J FN D)
(pn nii::l C"OtD1)

1"l'tD::l 110 "0 (= IB)
Who measured the water with the hollow of His hand
(and gauged the sky with a span)?
the duplication of the yod;
= kaige-Th in 24:14) <preferable>
the water of the sea
The reading of 1Qisaa is preferable because of the parallel hemistich+ ("and

gauged the skies with a span").
- Gen 2:4 (p. 54); Gen 49:10 (p. 3, n. 2); Jer 41:9 (p. 276); emendations+ in Amos
6:12 (p. 331) and Ps 73:1 (p. 334); Sof 7.5.
c.iii Orthography: Differences Involving Matres Lectionis

Delitzsch, Lese- und Schreibfehler, 32-56; S.R. Driver, Samuel, xxvi-xxxiii; Ginsburg, Introduction, 137-57.
Many of the matres lectionis+ were inserted gradually into the biblical
texts, in some cases at a relatively late stage in their development. -+ pp.
209-12. As a result, the textual witnesses reflect different orthographic
practices, as may be inferred from an analysis of m (pp. 212-18), lli (ch. 2,
Table 18 [pp. 89-90]), and many of the Qumran texts (pp. 101-2).
236
The addition of matres lectionis usually has no bearing on the meaning of the
text. However, a scribe who inserted matres lectionis followed his understanding
of the context, which did not always reflect the original meaning of the text, as
can sometimes be demonstrated by a comparison of the readings.
1 Sam 1:24
l\3
4QSama
= ;"TiD.,iDO'i5:1::J. (= ([D)
(And when she had weaned him, she took him up

with her,) along with three bulls, (an ephah of flour).
EV jl0GX4J TpLETL(OVTL (= S)
i5:1::l = iD.,iDOi5:1::l <preferable>
along with a three-year-old bull
iD.,iDO ip::l[ p i5:1::l] <preferable>
[along with (a)] three-year-old [bull from] the herd
The readings of m([ D and l\3 S 4QSama probably derived from a common source:
iD.,iDOi5:1::l. This word cluster originally referred to a i5:1, "bull," in the singular, 62
i.e., "she <Hannah> took him <Samuel> up ... along with a three-year-old bull."
When these words were misinterpreted, the common source of l\3 S 4QSama
retained this understanding (iD.,iDO i5:1::l), while m ([D. erroneously divided the
words as iD.,iD Oi5:1::l referring to three bulls. At that point, the scribe added matres
lectionis in m in accordance with the understanding of these words as referring to
"three bulls": a yod in the first word and a he at the end of the second one.
Furthermore, the non-final mem was changed into a final letter ...... pp. 197, 237
Isa 45:2a
(mQ itP':I$, mKiiD,N)
(l.,N TJ5:1., 'JN)
(I will go before you) and (I shall level) hadurim
1Qisaa
r:::J'ii;"T,, 1Qisab r:::J'i,i;"T, = l\3 KaL ()pf) - S <preferable>
and mountains
On the basis of contextual and linguistic considerations ..... 40:3-4, the reading of
1Qisaa l\3 appears preferable. The prophet describes God's ability to accomplish
the impossible (v 2b: "I will shatter doors of bronze and cut down iron bars")
and, in light of v 2b, a reading "I will level the mountains" (lQisaa l\3) would be
very appropriate. When r:::J'ii;"T, was corrupted by a daleth/resh interchange, a waw
was added as an internal vowel letter giving the resulting word r:::J'i,i;"T, (m) the
appearance of a passive partidple. 63
..... Metathesis+; ch. 2, Tables, 1, 4, 18, 22; above, Tables 2-6.
62 In the following verse, the bull is referred to in the singular in all the textual witnesses
("Then they slew the bull.").
63 The root of a passive participle t::'"')1i::)1 is not known elsewhere with a meaning that
would suit the context. For the lack of a better alternative, the word is connected to ii:'i,
"glory" (cf. D gloriosos terrae) and the root i"i:'i ("to honor"); accordingly, this word is
recorded in Gesenius, Handworterbuch, 1.219 and BDB as "swelling places" (cf. NEB:
"swelling hills"). For a similar difference between m
see Mic 2:9 'ii;'i - opEatV.
On the other hand, C.H. Southwood, "The Problematic h0 darlm of Isaiah XLV 2," VT 25
(1975) 801-2 holds on tom, suggesting that it reflects an Akkadian loan word daru, "city
walls," which could fit the context.
237
c.iv Orthography: Quiescent 'Aleph

Scribes sometimes freely omitted the quiescent 'aleph, i.e., an 'aleph
whose vowel was transferred to the preceding letter. -+ AndersenForbes, Spelling, 83-8; Kutscher, Language, 257, 498-500. Further examples
follow.
The name 11:ti\i n':l / 19 n':l, Beth Shean, appears six times in m with an 'aleph
Qosh 17:11, 16; Judg 1:27; 1 Kgs 4:12, twice; 1 Chr 7:29) and three times without it,
solely in Samuel (1 Sam 31:10, 12; 2 Sam 21:12).
Similarly, note the different spellings of the names
TiglathPileser, and
Shealtiel, within the same context.
2 Kgs 16:7
ibid., v 10
n'?m (= 2 Kgs 15:29)
Hag 1:12
ibid., v 1
(= 1:14; 2:2)
(= 2:23; Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Chr 3:17)
See also the following spellings in m:

Num 15:24
1 Sam 1:17
Job 8:8
1 Chr 11:39
nt;lJJ'? (=
10'?tP. (=
1itD'! (=
(=
w.)
thus the parallel in 2 Sam 23:37)
c.v Variations Involving the Use of Final Letters

Since the distinction between final and non-final forms of letters in the
square script+ was introduced at a relatively late period in the
development of the biblical text-+ p. 197, it is permissible to replace final
forms of letters with non-final forms and vice versa in the reconstruction
of earlier stages of the biblical text (for example, 1 Sam 1:24 on p. 236).
c.vi Vocalization (Reading)
Differences in vocalization (reading) reflecting different understandings
of the consonantal framework are recognizable among all textual
witnesses. -+ pp. 39-47
c.vii Complex Variants
Many variants involve several types of differences: consonants, matres
lectionis+, final letters, word division+, vocalization+, etc. Apart from the
examples mentioned in c.ii, iii, iv, v, vi, viii, see:
Ps 31:3// Ps 71:3 (for the text and an analysis, see pp. 375-6)
The readings in Ps 31:3 are contextually feasible, not only because of the
internal parallelism (mn:l
//
n:J'?), but also because of the parallelism
with the next verse ("my rock and my fortress"). On the other hand, the text of Ps
238
71:3 is difficult, having been created by a series of corruptions (interchange of

several letters, among them 'aleph I tav, and a different word division+).
"'fiQ;:t ii1?tP
nioiP (-
Shammah the Jfarodite

Shammot the Harorite
2 Sam 23:25
1 Chr 11:27
!TI+
2 Sam 23:27
!TI+
nwni1
(..
Mebunnai the J-:lushathite
1 Chr 11:29
m+
nwni1
(=
2 Sam 21:18 m)
Sibbekhai the I-:Iushathite
Jer 29:26
'i1 n:J
(mi1'-, ... Ji1:l
'i1)
(The LORD has made you priest ... to be) officers

<in I of> the House of the LORD.
(36:26)
yEvEa9m ETTlaTaTTJV EV Tljl OLKtp Kup(ou
'i1 n:J:::l
(=50;-([) <preferable>
an officer in the House of the LORD
These two texts reflect differences in the understanding of 1'P!l (in the singular or
plural), together with a :::l / r.. interchange and differences in word division+. The
plural form of m is inappropriate.
c. viii Abbreviations?
G.R. Driver, "Abbreviations in the Massoretic Text," Textus 1 (1960) 112-31; id., "Once
Again Abbreviations," Textus 4 (1964) 76-94; Eichhorn, Einleitung, II, 90, 102; Kennicott,
Dissertatio generalis, 49-55; M. Fishbane, "Abbreviations, Hebrew Texts," lDBSup, 3-4;
Ginsburg, Introduction, 165-70; Perles, Analekten 1.4-35; 11.1-10.
While the early biblical texts provide no evidence of the existence of

abbreviations (recognized initially by Kennicott* and further developed
by Eichhorn*), they were probably used at one time, since the translators
understood some elements in the ancient manuscripts as abbreviations.
Thus, the earlier existence in manuscripts of an abbreviation of the
Tetragrammaton+ as" or,, is likely.
Judg 19:18
m+
(i1n':Ji1 'n1M
iD'M J'M1) l'-,i1
ii1ii" n:J nM1
and to the House of the LORD I am going (and nobody
takes me into his house).

Kal ELS' Tov olKov IJ.OU Eyw arroTpExw
rropEUOIJ.aL)
<preferable>
l'-,i1
"n:J nM1 ('-,M1 ?)
and to my house I am going

Since the Levite is on his way home (cf. v 29), the reading of is preferable. A
probably original reading n:J, "my house," was erroneously understood in !TI+
as ' n:J, "the House of the LORD."
Jonah 1:9
!11+
(Mi'
C'rJiDi1 'i1'-,M 'i1 nM1)
"i::Jl1
I am a Hebrew (and I worship the

heaven). <preferable>
LORD,
the God of
239
"::lJN '' 1:l.!.l
I am a servant of the
LORD.
A probably original 'i:::l.l.l was understood as ' i:::l.l.l by

or its Vorlage+. Jonah's
answers in m suit the various questions concerning his origin, whereas according
to
Jonah does not answer these questions. Moreover, he refers twice to the
worship of God. Beyond the differences in the understanding of the yod, the two
texts also differ in their reading of the letters i / i.
Jer 6:11
m+
nN'?o ''non nN, (= 8 ')<preferable>
But I am filled with the wrath of the
LORD.
KUL TOV 8UIJ.OV IJ.OU EITAflO"U

nN'?o 'non nN,
But I am filled with my own wrath.

Deut 32:35
m+
c'?tv, cpJ
''?
To be my vengeance and recompense ...

c'?tv, cpJ t:l1''? ...
EV
avTarro8waw
For the day of vengeance and recompense ...

This example suggests an abbreviation ''? or an understanding of '? as an
abbreviation by l.ll
In this text, t:J,'? functions like n.l.l'? in the parallel hemistich+
(cf. also t:li"N t:l," in the third hemistich).
It is possible that personal names were also abbreviated. It is not likely

that pronominal and possessive suffixes and other word endings were
abbreviated, as claimed by G.R. Driver*.
d. Sequence Differences
The textual witnesses differ in many sequence differences in large(-+ ch.

7s8) and small details.
Gen 30:43
(t:J"iom
( ... l.ll; =
t:l'1:ll'1 rnn5:liD1 (m:::li

cr:O Ps-J N D)
,., ;,,)
(He had large flocks,) maidservants and

menservants, (camels and asses).
w\. rra'i8ES KaL rrm8[aKm (= 5)
n1n5:liD1 t:l'1:ll'1
menservants and maidservants

2 Sam 5:13
mJ:::l, C"J:::l
111' ,,.,,., (= cr)
and more sons and daughters were born to David

4QSama
Cf. 1 Chr 14:3
m
1il'
= (TQ LlauL8 ETL) 5
mJ:::l, t:J"J:::l 111' ,.,, ,.,,., (= cr)
..... Gen 31:17; 42:32 mtu
e. Scribal Interpretations
Scribes often embedded their interpretations in the sense divisions and
layout of the text.-+ pp. 198-202
240
3. Readings Reflecting Content Changes
The changes described and exemplified in 2 resulted from the copying

process and many of them reflect scribal mistakes. The creation of those
readings was an unavoidable result of scribal activity. While most of the
changes were unintentional, this section focuses on those that were
intentional. Some scribes took the liberty of altering the content of the text
in both large and small details. The following types of changes are
recognized, with a certain degree of overlap: (a) exegetical changes, (b)
linguistic-stylistic changes, (c) insertion of synonymous readings, (d)
harmonizations, (e) additions to the body of the text.64
All these details, like those in 2, are presented here as "changes," and are
therefore offered together with our interpretations of the textual data that may
often be explained differently.-+ p. 22
The presentation of the details in the textual transmission reflects our
understanding of the development of the biblical text in its early stages. In our
analysis, a distinction is made between (a) authors-scribes and editors-scribes
and (b) copyists-scribes. The hyphenation of these terms shows how difficult it is
to differentiate between the stages. Authors and editors created the books during
the first stages of their existence, but they were also active as scribes who wrote
their own thoughts and copied from earlier works, while some of them must
have dictated their works to others Geremiah 36) ...... van der Toorn, Scribal
Culture, 48-9. Scribes-copyists gave further shape to the books in transmitting the
finished compositions while also inserting occasional changes. The focus of this
chapter is on the freedom that the scribes-copyists allowed themselves.
There is a large gray area between the activity of copyists-scribes analyzed in
this chapter and that of authors and editors presented inch. 7. 65
a. Exegetical Changes
Ancient scribes took the liberty of inserting various changes (omissions,

additions, changes in content), for at the beginning of the transmission of
the biblical text, intervention such as that reflected in these changes was
64 The scribal and exegetical activity of authors is usually disregarded in this book since it
cannot be reconstructed with certainty and is not part of the textual transmission of the
biblical books. Thus the Chronicler's exegetical changes of his Vorlage (usually similar to
the known form of !H-Samuel-Kings) are not covered because he created a new literary
work. Literary and scribal phenomena operative at the compositional level continued to
be influential at the transmission stage, but the two areas are nevertheless separate ......
ch. 5C and 7C
65 The examples in this section, as elsewhere in this book, pertain to pairs of readings,
presumably original and changed. We retain an interest in both types of readings not
only because one is often unable to decide between the two, but also because secondary
readings may reveal aspects of the exegetical processes that were active in the
development of the biblical text (history of the Hebrew language, ancient exegesis,
history of ideas) ...... Rofe, "Historical Significance"
241
considered acceptable. These changes were inserted into all texts, and
therefore found their way into the proto-Masoretic texts, the Hebrew
Vorlage+ of several ancient translations, and tu. By means of a subjective
comparison of texts, it is possible to identify some deliberate changes.
Few of these changes were pervasive and encompassing, since copyistsscribes would not change the text to any great extent. According to our
understanding, the larger changes that are now found in the textual witnesses
should be ascribed to the earlier stage of the literary development of the biblical
books, which is analyzed in ch. 7.
On the basis of the examples provided here and in ch. 7, we have only a
limited idea about the growth of biblical texts, since we do not know how
frequently certain types of changes were inserted into the different texts.
In the paragraphs that follow, the changes are subdivided (somewhat
unequally) into (a) contextual and
theological changes. The first group
pertains to the complete range of contextual changes, while the second one
focuses on an area of major importance.
a. Contextual Changes
Koenig, "L'activite hermeneutique"; id., L'hermeneutique analogique; van der Kooij, Text-
zeugen, 81-101.
Many of the changes introduced by scribes cannot be ascribed to any of

the external influences described in the other paragraphs of this section.
They probably derived from the contexts themselves, reflecting the
scribes' wishes to adapt the texts to their own understanding or to an
exegetical tradition known to them. Some such examples have been
provided elsewhere:
Some Qere forms ..... pp. 54-9
Contextual adaptations in Qumran texts ..... ch. 2, Table 21 (pp. 103-4)
Some readings of w. ..... ch. 2, Tables 10-16 (pp. 83-7)
Exegetical elements behind the vocalization ..... pp. 41-2
Accentuation of m ..... pp. 62-5
Some additional examples follow:

Isa 14:2
m+
1Qisaa
Isa 35:6
m+
1Qlsaa
cmp'?1 (= )
For
peoples shall take them.
C":::l1
z::::mp'?1
For many peoples shall take them ...... Isa 2:3-4; 17:12
i1::l,l'::l c'?m1
For waters shall burst forth
in the wilderness.
i1::l,l'::l c'?m1 t:m
For waters shall burst forth
shall flow in the wilderness.
1l1p::lJ '=> (= )
in the desert, and streams
1l1p::lJ !'\'::>
in the desert, and streams
242
Influence from the parallel hemistich+ is visible in the following instances.

Isa 9:16
cni' 1(', ,,mr:l',l( nl(, ,,r:ln' nl(, 'jil(
1(', ,,im:::l. ',v
',v
That is why the LORD will not spare their youths, nor
show compassion to their orphans and widows.
1(," ,,mjr:l',l( nl(, ,,r:lm' nl(, 'j,il(
1(,', ,,im:::l. ',v
',v
t::Jni'
The verb was changed in 1Qisaa in accordance with the parallel verb (cf. the
parallelism of t:lni and ',r:ln in Jer 13:14; 21:7).
Isa 45:7
m+
Vi l(i,:::l.,
cn'-,iD i1iDV
(=
I make prosperity and create disaster.

1Qisaa
Vi i1i,:::l., :::l1t:l i1iD,ll
I make the good and create the evil.
Influence from general usage is visible in th_e following instance.

Isa 56:6
m+
i11i1' t:liD nl(
(=
and to love the name of the LORD

1Qisaa
i1,i1' t:liD nl( l1:::l'-,1
and to bless the name of the
LORD
The reading of 1Qisaa follows the more frequent phrase (e.g. Ps 113:2), also
occurring often in the Jewish liturgy.
Theological Changes
B.D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the Neu.1 Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Fishbane,
Biblical Interpretation, 1-88; Geiger, Urschrift, 259-423; Koenig, "L'activite hermeneutique";
McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim; A. Rubinstein, "The Theological Aspect of Some Variant
Readings in the Isaiah Scroll," JJS 6 (1955) 187-200; Schorch, Euphemismen (2000); I.L.
Seeligmann, "Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Massoretic Text and
the Septuagint," VT 11 (1961) 201-21; id., "Researches into the Criticism of the Masoretic
Text of the Bible," in id., Studies in Biblical Literature (ed. A. Hurvitz et al.; Heb.; 2"d ed.;
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1996) 295--318 = "Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte der
Hebraischen Bibel," in id., Gesammelte Studien zur Hebriiischen Bibel (ed. E. Blum; FAT 41;
Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 421--48; Tov, "Consistency" (2010).
Many of the exegetical changes in manuscripts lie within the religious

realm, and therefore in modern discussions they are usually termed
theological. Although such changes are recognized in most biblical
books, they do not appear with the same frequency in all books or in all
textual witnesses. Their inconsistent occurrence in the manuscripts is one
of their distinguishing features- Tov* 2010, while some conglomerations
of theological intervention are recognizable.- v below
Some types of small theological changes in m are found among the
Qere+ readings and the exegetical "corrections of the Scribes+", while the
few ideological changes in ill are mentioned on pp. 87-8. Similar
243
tendencies are seen in the ancient versions, reflecting their Vorlagen+ and
the translators' activities.-+ pp. 120-22
We distinguish between large theological changes, listed in A below,
ascribed to the earlier authors-scribes, and small theological changes
inserted by copyists-scribes. 66 The former, usually not mentioned in textcritical analyses, reflect differences between the layers in the process of
literary growth. These changes are exemplified first.
A.
Large Theological Changes (based on data provided in ch. 7B)
Various elements in the "long" text of !TI-Jeremiah reflect theologoumena. Thus

the doxology+ included in tn+ in Jer 10:6-8, 10, but not in (13, was intended as a
counterbalance to the description of the futility of the idols. -+ ch. 7, Table 2a (pp.
292-3). The long text stressed the guilt of the nation and the centrality of God,
and it also mentioned the future return of the exiled Temple vessels to Jerusalem
thus stressing divine providence (27:21-22 m).-+ ch. 7, Table 1 (pp. 289-92).
Various elements in either (13 or m in Joshua. (13 lacks details regarding the
priestly involvement in the conquest of Jericho (m 6:3b, 4, 6b, 9a) and divine
providence governing the victory at Ai (m 8:7b). Nomistic+ changes in (13-Joshua:
in the (13 account of the conquest of Jericho the priests alone are reported to have
sounded the rams' horns (in 6:9 m, the rear guard also sounds the trumpet); (13
lacks references to sanctuaries in 6:24; 9:23; 24:2. -+ ch. 7B2
While in the encounter between David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 16-18, David
is a well-known person in (13 (ed. I), m conveys the idea that God can bring victory
to his people (ed. II, lacking in (13) even through unimportant figures (17:12-31 m).
Likewise, that version also stressed that David did not need a sword in order to
defeat the Philistine (17:50 m).-+ ch. 7B4a
In the differing editions of m, (13, and 4QSama in the Song of Hannah, several
theological changes have been inserted: In 1 Sam 2:8c and 9a, m and (13* present
different reinterpretations of the main theme of the Song. -+ ch. 7B4b
In the extensively rewritten text of (13-1 Kings (3 Kingdoms), the "sinners"
Solomon, Jeroboam, and Ahab are presented in a more favorable light than in !TI+.
Furthermore, chapters 2, 5, and 11 in (13 emphasize Solomon's wisdom in order to
enhance his personality.-+ ch. 7B7
m-Esther was rewritten extensively in the Hebrew source of (13 and (\}A-Text.
Probably the most characteristic feature of (13 is the addition of a religious
background to a book that lacks the mentioning of God's name in m and the
inclusion of the content of prayers by Esther and Mordecai. -+ ch. 7B15
The editorial activity visible in the manuscripts of the w.-group was
ultimately motivated by theological concerns. -+ ch. 7B21
66 This distinction is mainly based on quantitative criteria and is therefore difficult. This
difficulty comes to light in the inclusion in Table 8 below of the different theological
tendencies of ffi+ and IIJ 4QDeutq in Deut 32:43. We tentatively suggest that the
theological innovations of m in that verse, even if combined with the change in v 8, are
not extensive enough to be named a separate layer, but this decision is not without
problems.
244
The Hebrew Vorlage+ of Psalm 151

probably removed David's praise of
God from the earlier version of llQPsa col. XXVIII, because it differed in key
ch. 7B22
points from the depiction of David in 1 Samuel16 ffi+,
B.
Small Theological Changes
Although all scholars accept the assumption of theological intervention

in textual witnesses, their frequency remains a matter of dispute. From
the scholarly literature one often gets the impression that ancient scribes
frequently inserted theological alterations. However, the number of such
changes is probably smaller than usually assumed, since most scholars
provide the same examples for a phenomenon they consider widespread
(note also that many of the examples of theological changes given by
Geiger* 68 are emendations+). The fact. that the Masorah explicitly
mentions the-probably exegetical-corrections of the Scribes+, which
constitute a generally accepted phenomenon in the transmission of m,
has influenced scholars to assume many more such instances, e.g.
Geiger*; Barthelemy, Etudes, 91-110; McCarthy*, 197-243.
While some deliberate changes do not follow any specific pattern - i, in
other cases certain tendencies are recognized. Many of these changes pertain to
areas that were sensitive for generations of early scribes, who, as all readers of
the Bible, had their own ideas about many aspects of religion.
i. Sundry Contextual Theological Alterations
Theological difficulties were often avoided by way of various types of

changes.
Gen 2:2
(iiiVll iiVM
r:::J1'::J r:::J'ii"M ',;:,1
(= cr::O Ps-J N D) <preferable>

On the seventh day God completed (the work that He
had been doing).
lli
(iiiVll iiVM
r:::J1'::J r:::J'ii"M ',;:,1
auVETEAEaEV (J 8EOS" EV
EKTlJ = 5
On the sixth day God completed (the work that He
had been doing) = REB
Kat
According to m <r: 0 Ps-J N D, God completed his work "on the seventh day,"
without implying that God actually worked on that day. However, some scribes
(and possibly translators) probably found it difficult to imagine that God would
67 See J.A. Sanders, DJD IV, 54-64. On the other hand, M. Segal, "The Literary
Development of Psalm 151: A New Look at the Septuagint Version," Textus 21 (2002)
139-58 views the two versions as parallel developments.
68 Geiger (1928 [1857)) was the first scholar to systematically deal with theological
interventions in all books of m, under several headings: divine names (pp. 261-308),
inappropriate expressions including the "corrections of the Scribes"+ (pp. 308-45),
foreign nations and fractions within Israel (345-85), and feelings of shame (385-423).
245
have worked on the seventh day and therefore corrected the presumably original
reading+ to an easier+ one (m, 113, 5, Jubilees 2:16-perhaps independently).
1 Sam 2:17
nt+
':l (i11i1'
i1'?1i'
'i1m)
i11i1'
4QSam 3
= 113
(The sin of the young men against the LORD was very
great) for the men treated the LORD's offering
impiously
ii1i1'
':l <preferable>
OTL
eva(av Kup(ou
for they treated the LORD's offering impiously
!TI+ probably inserted
"the men" (cf. Num 16:30}, in order to mitigate the

accusation against the sons of Eli (the addition, contradicting t:l'iVm in the
have treated the offering of the LORD
context, suggests that other people also
impiously}-contrast 1 Sam 2:22-23 below. 9 This word is lacking in 4QSam 3 , 113.
1 Sam 14:18
!TI+
ii'ii ':l)
iiiD''ii
t:l1':::l
(Saul said to Ahijah,} "Bring the Ark of God" (for the

Ark of God was at the time among the Israelites)
113
rrpoaciyayE TO Eou8 (on atJTo<;
To Eou8 E:v
EKELV!J E:vwmov IapaT]A.)
Bring the ephoud (because he carried the ephoud of God
at the time among the Israelites) =
iiiV'jii
The reading of 113, appropriate in the context (..... v 3; 1 Sam 23:9; 30:7}, was
changed in m-Samuel probably because the eplrod was not desirable as a
legitimate form of turning to God ...... Seeligmarm* 1996, 300-301 = id., 2004, 4278. At the same time, m did not remove the ephod in v 3.
Some theological changes do not correct details as in the cases

mentioned above, but insert new ideas into the text:
1 Sam 2:22-23
m+
11:::l::Jil.l'
'?:l'?
oii'?
ptvv
'?:l nli:
nn::l
t:J'il.lm
t:l'i:::li:l ]1tvvn
When he <Eli> heard all that his sons were doing to

all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled(?) at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, 23 he said
to them: "Why do you do such things?"
4QSam 3
t:li1'?
]1 23
t:l'iV [ 1V]
t:l'i:::li:l]]1tvvn
<preferable>
When he heard [that] which his sons [were d]oing to
the Israelites, [23 he said to them: "Why do you] do
[such thin]gs?" (= 113)
To the shorter and probably earlier text (4QSam 3 113}, !H+ added a section based on
Exod 38:8: "from the women who assemble (?) at the entrance of the Tent of
Meeting," in order to increase the sin of the sons of Eli by making "such things"
69 The two changes in m are not necessarily contradictory since both are based on the
Torah, and by extension may be considered nomistic+.-+ iv
246
in v 23 more explicit. Two details in the plus of ffi+ do not accord with the context
and thus disclose its secondary nature: the mention of the Tent of Meeting (cf.
Josh 18:1), rather than the House of the LORD mentioned elsewhere in the context
(1 Sam 1:7, 9, 24; 3:3, 15 [i11i1' n:::1 and i11i1' "::l'i1]), and the mentioning of women
who do not appear again in the context.
1 Sam 11:9
m+
4QSam 3
rDOiZli1 (en:> mO) en:::1 i1IJ1rD' e::>" i1'i1n 1no (= )
tomorrow, when the sun grows hot, you shall be

saved
? rDOrDi1 en:> i1IJ1 ]tbni1 i11i1'0[
... ]from the LORD is sal[vation
4QSam 3 ascribed the salvation by humans to the

Scripture._. Rofe, "4QMidrash Samuel?", 63
LORD,
as often elsewhere in
It is often difficult to prove the secondary nature of theological

interpolations, but the following interpolation is extremely inappropriate
in the context.
1 Sam 2:10
The foes of the lord shall be shattered

+the Lord is holy. Let not the clever boast in his
cleverness, and let not the mighty boast in his might,
and let not the wealthy boast in his wealth, but let him
who boasts boast in this: to understand and know the
Lord and to execute justice and righteousness in the
midst of the land.+ = 4QSam 3
This plus of and 4QSam 3 (very fragmentary) is in the nature of an

interpolation+ occurring after the first clause in the translation of v 10. However,
it refers back to the last words of v 9 and to v 3. The idea of the interpolation is a
theological reply to v 9c "For not by strength shall man prevail," repeating the
text of Jer 9:22-23 with a few differences? 0 -+ Tov, "Hannah," 448-52
As an appendix to this paragraph a few examples are mentioned of

theological concerns expressed by a change in vocalization.
Jer 7:3
m
a
e1p9:;1
(= S)
I will let you dwell in this place.
Kal GKfJVWGW avv UlllV ... =!) et habitabo vobiscum in loco
is to
e1p9:;1
Jer 7:7
I will dwell with you in this place.

m
e1p9:;1
(= 113 S)
I will let you dwell in this place.
mMSS
e1p9:;1
= lJ habitabo vobiscum in loco is to
I will dwell with you in this place.
According to Geiger*, 320-21 and BHS, the original text of Jer 7:3 has been
preserved in Aquila and lJ. The idea of that text, according to which God would
have dwelled with men, repulsive to some, would have been corrected to the
70 This remark was probably placed originally in the margin and afterwards wrongly
inserted into the text itself.-+ e
247
"easier"+ vocalization of !11+. 71 However, according to Holladay, Jeremiah 1.235-7,

m is original.
I will appear before God.
m
C';"T'?l't
= 1\3 D
Ps 42:3
I will see the face of God.
mMSS
iitt"")ttl = ([ 5
Niph 'al forms of ;"TMi frequently refer to God (e.g. Exod 23:15; 34:20, 24; Deut
16:16). In all twelve verses, Geiger*, 337-8 and McCarthy*, 197-204 accept the qal
as the original vocalization assuming that the niph 'al forms tone down the idea of
the actual seeing of God expressed by the qal. 72 This view was already expressed
by S.D. Luzzatto on Isa 1:12 (" ... the punctuators, ,,pm ''?ll:l, ... corrected the
expression out of respect."). As a rule, manuscript evidence is lacking for
assuming this change, which in most cases amounts to an emendation+.
However, such evidence is available in Ps 42:3 mMSS 5 <r: and Isa 1:12 mMSS 5.
ii. Anti-Polytheistic Alterations

At one stage, the theophoric element Ba 'al must have been common in
proper names, as is still visible in various layers of the biblical text. At a
later stage, such elements were undesirable, and they were either
removed or replaced 73 with other elements such as the derogatory
element ntp:J., "shame." 74 This phenomenon is especially evident in mSamuel as compared with the parallel text in Chronicles; on other
theological changes in Samuel, see v. In this particular case, the
71 For a possibly parallel development, cf. the so-called name theology of Deuteronomy.
That book often mentions the "establishing of God's name" in the chosen city (e.g. 12:5)
rather than the dwelling of God himself, as often elsewhere in the Torah. For a reverse
development see Ezek 43:7, where according tom God dwells among the Israelites (]ft\il$
Ci\i, "I will dwell there"; similarly v 9), while l\3 reads KGTGUKTJVWUEL TO
"my
name will dwell."
72 See also J. Joosten, "To See God: Conflicting Exegetical Tendencies in the Septuagint," in
Karrer-Kraus, Septuaginta, 287-99.
73 Thus Geiger* and Ginsburg, Introduction, 399-404 and, in great detail, McCarthy*. On
the other hand, M. Tsevat, "Ishbosheth and Congeners: The Names and Their Study,"
HUCA 46 (1975) 71--87; G.J. Hamiltor., "New Evidence for the Authenticity of bst in
Hebrew Personal Names and for Its Use as a Divine Epithet in Biblical Texts," CBQ 60
(1998) 228--50, and S. Schorch, "Baal oder Boschet? Ein umstrittenes theophores Element
zwischen Religions- und Textgeschichte," ZAW 112 (2000) 598--611 suggest that boshet is
a positive element reflecting the Akkadian bashtu component in personal names.
However, the concentration of the boshet forms in m-Samuel strengthens the possibility
of a theological change. For examples of similar interchanges in other biblical names,
see J.H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew
Inscriptions (HSS 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 8.
74 For evidence of this change elsewhere, cf. 1 Kgs 18:19, 25m ".ll:m and l\3 TflS' alaxuvfJS',
"shame." See also the parallelism between ".ll::l and ntv::l in Jer 11:13. According to
Geiger*, 299-308, a similar tendency is reflected in the change of the name of the deity
of the Ammonites, accepted by many of the Israelites, from 1'79, "king," to l"b, Molekh,
thus imitating the vocalization pattern of nt;i:::J. Likewise, according to Geiger, in order to
oust this use of "king," scribes may have eliminated the phrase cf"(r,l, "their king," by
changing its vocalization to a non-existent deity Milkom (thus 1 Kgs 11:5, 33).
248
manuscripts of Chronicles preserve an earlier textual tradition than mSamuel, as shown in the third and fourth columns of Table 7.
Table 7
Corrections of the Theophoric Element Ba'al
Original name
References
Corrected name
Judg 6:32; 7:1;

alternative name 8:29, 35; 9:1, 2, Jerubbesheth
5, 5, 16, 19, 24,
for Gideon (d.
28, 57; 1 Sam
Judg 7:1)
12:11; 2 Sam
11: 21 \1;, 22 \1}
References
2 Sam 11:21
ffi([D
Eshbaal 1 Chr 8:33; 9:39 1.

Yishvi,
1 Sam 14:49 m
Saul's fourth son
probably
corrupted from
or
Ishyahu
2.
Ishbosheth 75
:::l'!9, Merib- 1 Chr 8:34, 34;
9:40a; 1 Chr
baa!, a son of
Mephibosheth
9:40b (MeriJonathan, also:
baa!)
Ishbaal
one of David's
heroes
2 Sam 23:8
11;most MSS
11;Luc
Ishbosheth-also
reflected in a
corrupted form
in m
:J\P."
VL Iesbael;
1 Chr 11:11
11;MSS
ll'J:'?
77
Deut 32:8
1 Chr 14:7
m 2 Sam 2:8,
10, 12, 15; 3:8,

14,15; 4:5,8,8,12
m 2 Sam 4:4;
9:6, 10,11,12,13;
16:1, 4; 19:25,
26, 31; 21:7, 8
'J:::l
mainly the
original
form, and
once the
corrected
form
only the
corrected
form
only the
corrected
form
only the
corrected
forms
m 2 Sam 23:8
only the
corrected
form,
though
corrupted
m 2 Sam 5:16;
only the
corrected
form
1 Chr 3:8
m+
m-Samuel
(= tu)
(according to the number) of the sons of Israel

4QDeuti
'J:::l
(according to the number) of the sons of God

848106 c ... ULWV 8EOU
11;most MSS ayyEAWV 8Eou
In its probably original wording, reconstructed from 4QDeuti and 11;, the Song of
Moses referred to an assembly of the gods (d. Psalm 82; 1 Kgs 22:19)/8 in which
75 The only evidence found in 4QSama relating to these names is in 2 Sam 4:12 where the
scroll reads niD::l'!:lO (m niD::l iD'N) and 4:1, 2 niD::l'!:lO (m > ). All three readings are in error.
76 The precise relation between -'::10 and -::l'iO is not clear.
77 The vocalization Be'e/ may show an avoidance of Ba'a/.
249
"(the Most High, 'Elyon, fixed the boundaries of peoples according to the
number) of the sons of <the God> El." 79 The next verse stresses that the LORD,
:11:1', kept Israel for himself. Within the supposedly original context, 'Elyon and El
need not be taken as epithets of the God of Israel, but as names of gods known
from the Canaanite and Ugaritic pantheon (see the Ugaritic text KTU 1.4, VI.46
where seventy sons of [El and] Athirat are mentioned). However, it appears that
the scribe of an early text, now reflected in m+, did not feel at ease with this
polytheistic picture and replaced "sons of El" with '?MiiD'
"the sons of Israel,"
thus giving the text a different direction by the change of a single word:80
When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the
divisions of man, He fixed the boundaries of peoples according
to the number of the sons of Israel.
A similar correction in mis reflected at the end of the song:
Table 8
Tendentious Change in m-Deut 32:43
4QDeutq II 5 ii (Deut 32:41d-43) Compared with m+ and
4QDeutq
ffi+
l:l"iDI( 'I([JiD0.,1]
iiD:::l "j[l(["1 ':::lin11

i1':::liDf1 ""n 1:1101
:::l'iK niilfi
*"N 'J:::l '" ' '

l:ll,l
*(1:1'i1)7N
c1p' 1'1:::!JJ 1:11 ':::l
:::l'iD' cpJ1
10.\) I:I'OiD 1J'Jii143
1J'Ji i1
1QJ!
1
2
1:110
l:l'i1"1( ":::l 1" 11nr11Zli11
3
4
5
a
b
a'
1J'Jii1
b'
":::l 1" (til 1:::li11) 1l'lJi11

1:11 ':::l
1:11p' 1'J:::l 1:11 ':::l
*:::l'iD'1 1:1pJ1
:!'tv' cpJ1
l:l"iD' 1'NJiD0"1
1oJJ nQ iN il:::l'1
10JJ r101N il:::l'1
1:11p'
bottom margin
Taking m as point of departure, the translation presents the differences

between m, the reconstructed Vorlage+
and 4QDeutq as following:
a. Be glad, 0 nations, His people !11 I Be glad, 0 skies, with Him
4QDeutq
78 According to this view, the original reading El is reconstructed from 4QDeuti l:l'i11"N 'J:::l
and 1QHa XXIV 33-341:l'OJJ n1"1:Jpo ... "K 'J:::!O. The evidence of is not specific enough.
On the other hand, if the longer text of 4QDeuti is accepted as original, the change in m
should be considered theological in a general sense(-+ i), and not anti-polytheistic.
79 <!:Ps-J explained "KitD' 'J:::l as referring to both angels (cf. also Ibn Ezra ad lac.) and the
number of the sons of Israel who left Canaan for Egypt.
8 For a discussion and bibliography, see Tigay, Deuteronomy, 314-15, 513-18; M.S. Smith,
"What is a Scriptural Text in the Second Temple Period? (... )," in The Dead Sea Scrolls at
60 (ed. L.H. Schiffman & S. Tzoref; SIDJ 89; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010) 271-98.
81 Exclusive agreements of 4QDeutq with are indicated by italics. Problematic reconstructions are indicated with a star(*).
250
b. + and let all the sons of God do obeisance to Him + \13 4QDeutG
a'. +Be glad, 0 nations, with His people+, \13 <doublet+>
b'. +and let all the angels of God prevail for Him. + \13 <doublet+>
c. For He'll avenge the blood of His servants mI sons, \13 4QDeutG
d. wreak revenge and repay His foes,
e. + and He will repay those who hate+, \13 4QDeutG
f. and He will cleanse His land, His people mI the land of his people \13 4QDeutG lll
The major difference between the three texts consists of the added hemistichs+ b
and e in 4QDeutG and \13 as compared with ffi+. 82 Hemistich b is paralleled by
other verses in m mentioning the "sons of God" or "divine beings." In
Deuteronomy, the "sons of God" are mentioned only in \13 (vv 8, 43) and 4QDeutG
but not in ffi+. This colon was probably deleted in ffi+ in an act of theological
censorship when the phrase "sons of God" was considered an unwanted
polytheistic depiction of the world of the divine. 83 Tendentious changes are
never consistent, and indeed "sons of God" are mentioned elsewhere in m (e.g.
Gen 6:2; Ps 29:1; cf. 82:1).84
2 Sam 5:21
!11+
1 Chr 14:12
111
CtD 1::lTll'1 = 1 Chr 14:12 ([ S
They <the Philistines> abandoned their idols there,
and David and his men carried them off.
1EI,tv'1 ... t:lii'ii'?N
CtD 1::lTll'1 ( = \13 0 ad lac. and \13
in 2 Sam 5:21) <preferable>
They abandoned their gods there ... and they were
burned.
The original reading+ has apparently been preserved in 2 Sam 5:21 \13 Touc; 9EoUc;
atmDv and in the parallel text in Chronicles, where "their gods" refers to the idols
of the Philistines. The scribe of m-Samuel probably found cause for offense in that
idols were referred to in this verse as
"their gods," usually employed for
"their idols.'' 85
the God of Israel, and accordingly he changed the text to
-+ Schorch* 2000, 48, 77
iii. Euphemistic Alterations

Several of the theological alterations resemble the euphemistic
"corrections of the Scribes"+ in m.86 While the latter "corrections"
82 Hemistichs a' and b' of II} are secondary, both being translational doublets+. NRSV has
accepted hemistich b ("worship him, all you gods") as well as other details from II} and
4QDeutG in the translation.
83 See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 513-18; Rofe, Deuteronomy, 47-54.
84 See F.M. Cross, "Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament," BASOR 117 (1950)
19-21; F.-L. Hossfeld in Die Psalmen I (ed. F.-L. Hossfeld & E. Zenger; NEchtB; Wurzburg: Echter, 1993) 184-5.
85 Geiger*, 289 was the first to suggest that the change from c;,'?l( to c'?;,l( is also
intentional I euphemistic: 2 Sam 7:23 m1';"!'?1<1 I 4QSama II} c'?;,1<1; 2 Sam 20:1 correction of
the scribes+ 1';"!'?1<'? 1m II} 1'"mK'?; likewise 1 Kgs 12:16 and 2 Chr 10:16. -+ Schorch* 2000,
46-7, 77
86 These euphemistic alterations are found in one of the textual witnesses. Other
presumed euphemistic alterations found in (almost) all witnesses are listed by Schorch*
2000, 85--214.
251
probably represent mere exegetical traditions, the following examples

pertain to actual changes inserted in manuscripts.
2 Sam 12:9
(= \l3)
!TI+
i11i1' i:::li 1'11( n'T:::l
\l3Luc
Why did you despise the word of the LORD?

on Eou8Evwaas- n)v KUpLov
Why did you despise
the LORD?
boc2e 2 )8 7 contains the apparent original text of Nathan's words to

David (-+ v 10 'JnT:::l, "you have despised Me"), which has been mitigated by the
addition in !TI+. See also the next example.
\l3Luc (MSS
2 Sam 12:14a
!TI+
4QSama
i11i1'
rl(J ;::, O::ll()
(= \l3)
(However, since you have utterly scorned) the enemies

of the LORD
i11i1' 1:::1'1
the word of the LORD
In m, Nathan refers to David's scorning of the LORD on account of his taking the
wife of Uriah the Hittite. 88 In this context, it is likely that what looks like an
addition in most textual witnesses ("the enemies of the LORD") reflects a
euphemistic mitigation of the explicit expression of the assumed earlier text
("you have utterly scorned the LORD"). Furthermore, the reading of 4QSama
makes it likely that the original text contained no mitigating word at all between
the verb ("you have utterly scorned") and "the LORD," since different softening
expressions were used in m+, \l3 ("the enemies of the LORD"), and 4QSama ("the
word"). 89 A similar euphemism, referring to David, was probably used in 1 Sam
20:16 and 25:22.90
Job 2:9
m
\l3
l:l'i1'?l( 1i:::l (= ([ o)
Bless God and die!
Eirr6v n Pillla Eis- KUpLov Say some word to God!
Most scholars agree that here and in Job 1:5, 11; 2:5; 1 Kgs 21:10, 13, the verb "to
bless" in the words of Job's wife cannot be taken literally (thus Ibn Ezra on Job
1:5: "a substitute term and it means the opposite"). It must be taken as a
euphemistic change of "to curse" (thus S) by an early Hebrew scribe. 91
Additional examples of euphemistic alterations in the area of sexual

relations and personal feelings include Deut 28:27, 30. These two euphe87 This reading may reflect the OG+ translation.
88 In v 13, David confesses: "I have sinned against the Lord" and v 14b mentions the
punishment, "the child about to be born to you shall die."
89 For an analysis, see Ginsburg, Introduction, 101; S.R. Driver, Samuel, 225; McCarthy*,
184-7; Schorch* 2000, 87.
90 See further D.W. Parry, "The 'Word' or the 'Enemies' of the Lord? Revisiting the
Euphemism in 2 Sam 12:14," in Paul, Emanuel, 367-78. It is not impossible that in this
and other instances the authors themselves used a euphemistic expression, as suggested
by Yaron and Anbar with supporting evidence from Egypt and Mari: R. Yaron, "The
Coptos Decree and 2 Sam XII 14," VT 9 (1959) 89-91; M. Anbar, "Un euphemisme
'biblique' dans une lettre de Mari," Orientalia 48 (1979) 109-11. In that case, these verses
are not relevant to the textual transmission.
91 On the other hand, if the original authors themselves used the word "bless"
euphemistically -+ McCarthy*, 191-5, no scribal change was involved. ([ D reflect m,
exegetically explained, as \IJ.
252
misms have been incorporated in the Masorah as a Qere. -+ p. 57. It is

probable that the following reading in m also reflects a euphemistic
change.
Deut 25:11
i1p'Tni11 ( = cr:O Ps- J N D)

She seized him by his genitals <literally: that which
excites shame>.
m.
1itv::!::! ;,prn;,1
She seized him by his flesh <genitals> (d. Exod 28:42).

The reading of m probably reflects a euphemism replacing an explicit term in m..
According to Schorch* 2000,64, both m and m. are euphemistic.
iv. "Nomistic" Alterations

S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEAT AJ 9;
Frankfurt a.M./Bern: Peter Lang, 1989) 239-44; Mazor, "Nomistic"; Prijs, fiidische Tradition,
62-7; Rofe, "Nomistic Correction" (1989); id., "Note sui testo ebraico e Ia tradizione greca
dei libri di "Giosue" e "Giudici": Correzioni nomistiche," Annali di Scienze Religiose 8
(2003a) 23-36; id., "The History of Israelite Religion and the Biblical Text: Corrections Due
to the Unification of Worship," in Paul, Emanuel (2003b) 759-93; id., "The Scribal Concern
for the Torah as Evidenced by the Textual Witnesses of the Hebrew Bible," in Mishneh
Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of jeffrey H. Tigay (ed.
N.S. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 229-42.
The influence of the laws of the Torah upon the thinking of readers and
scribes of the biblical books was increasingly felt in the creation of the
Biblical literature. This trend is felt in the rewriting of the Chronicler,
who usually conforms details in Israel's history to those in the Torah.
-+ Japhet*. This trend, often named "nomistic," 92 is also reflected in
various textual changes adapting details in the text to these laws; see
and Rofe* 1989-2003 for all the textual witnesses.
especially Prijs*
By extension, the changes of theophoric names ( i) also may be
considered nomistic. Some examples follow.
Exod 24:4
m.
itD.ll C'Jtv',)
(',NiiZl'
(i1iiZl.ll c'niZl1 ii1i1 nnn

( = cr:O Ps-J N 5)
)::!'1)
(He <Moses> built an altar at the foot of the mountain

and twelve) pillars (for the twelve tribes of Israel).
C'J::!N = llJ A.L8ou<; (stones)
Possibly an original
"pillar," was changed by m. or its underlying text to
to conform with Deut 16:22, which forbids the erection of a pillar.
C'J:lN
Accordin? to Rofe* 1989, 252 nomistic changes occur frequently in 4QSam 3 ,

for example: 3
9 2 Nomos is the most frequent equivalent of ;nm, Torah in llJ.
93 Rofe also analyzed 1 Sam 1:23 (-o p. 256); 1:24 (ip:::l[ ):::l i:l, cf. Exod 29:1; Lev 4:3); 2:14, 22
(-o j); 10:6 (addition of n1:l1ln before en'? in IB 4QSam 3 , cf. Lev 23:15-21). See, further,
the addition in the scroll of en'? in 1:24 (d. Lev 7:13).
1 Sam 2:16
m
4QSam 3
:J',ni1 1:11'::l ]1i't:lP' it:lp (...
253
s D)
Let them <the sons of Eli> first burn the fat.

[:J',n ]fr 1:11'::l Ji11::li1 it:lp'
Let the priest first burn the [fat].
In m, the owner of the sacrifice makes a general statement about the burning of
the fat by the sons of Eli, while 4QSam 3 ascribes this action to the priest in
accordance with Lev 7:31.
A special group of changes concerns the insertion of the words i1i1n, Torah or
"commandment" in the text, following developments in later Judaism. -+
Rofe* 2009
Josh 1:7
!TI+
iiDI't i1i1ni1 ",;:,;:, miD .lh ir:liD"

... to observe faithfully all the teaching that my servant
Moses enjoined upon you
<j>uA.aaaEa9aL Kat. TTOLE'iv Ka96n EVETEtAaT6 am
'1:::1.11 i1iDr:l
MwUGT]S'
orra'i<; llOU
... to observe and act as Moyses my servant enjoined

upon you
'1:::1.11 i1iDr:l
iiDI't::l
miD v', i oiD',
In the text common to

and m, Joshua is depicted as a loyal follower of
Moses, while m goes one step further when God made Joshua comply with
Moses' Torah. Similar additions: Deut 24:8 u.r. (cf. m and 17:11); Jer 44:10 m (cf.
51:10); 2 Chr 31:4 m (cf.
1 Kgs 18:18
!11+
i11i1'
nl't C::l:JW:J
by forsaking the commandments of the
LORD
EV Tlfl KUTUALilTTclVELV UllQS' TOV KUpLOV 9EOV VllWV
by your forsaking the
LORD
your God
l:l::l'i1"1't i11i1' nl't l:l::l:Ji .11:::1
According to
Elijah accuses Ahab of abandoning the LORD and of not
recognizing him as the true God as in vv 21, 39 (m+,
presumed correction
in m mentions the commandments of the LORD. For similar additions, seem+ Deut
26:17 and Jer 32:11 compared
Another group of changes displays a sensibility towards the permitted place of
worship in ancient Israel. A case in point would be two changes in m-Joshua 24.
According to v 1 !11+, Joshua assembled the people in Shechem in a sanctuary
("before God"), while the tabernacle was still stationed at Shiloh according to
18:1 !11+,
the basis of that verse, Shekhem was changed to "Shiloh" in the
Hebrew Vorlage
in 24:1. 94 The Hebraistic+ diction of a similar addition of a
sanctuary in v 25 (Evwmov Tfj<; GKT]Vfj<; Tou 9Eou IapaT]A. = ',l(iiD' 'i1"l't piDr:l 'J::l',)
supports its base in a Hebrew manuscript.95 For Deut 27:4, seen. 96.
94 Cf. also the rabbinic understanding of the sequence of legitimate places of worship (m.
Zebah. 14.4-8).
95 The omission in m of the illegitimate place of worship mentioned in ll> Judg 2:1, Beth-El,
forms a similar instance.-+ Rofe* 1989, 249-50; id., 2003b, 781-2
254
v. Conglomerations ofTheological Alterations in m-Samuel

While theological alterations are found in all textual witnesses, it is difficult to
make a case for sectarian or anti-sectarian changes, Essene (p. 110, n. 192),
Sadducean, anti-Samaritan or anti-Sadducean. 96 We find a conglomeration of
theological changes in m-Samuel. Theological changes are
found more
frequently in m-Samuel than in the other witnesses to that book 7 and in the
other books in m. 98 However, admittedly this is a mere impression; statistics are
of no avail and some examples are open to other explanations.99 In addition to
the examples analyzed in i and ii, note the removal or change of some of
Hannah's cultic actions in 1 Samuel1-2 considered inappropriate for a woman:
(1) Three times m removed Hannah's standing before the LORD in a cultic
context in 1 Samuel 1-2, while other non-cultic references were left unchanged
(1:12, 15):
96 Pace Geiger*, 170-99. Ebal in m-Deut 27:4 is probably not anti-Samaritan, but reflects an
ancient reading. -+ p. 88, n. 140. The following variant exemplifies an anti-Sadducean
reading according to Geiger*, 175:
Prov 14:32
m
p;:;
;"TOm JJtZl, ;"Tn;
(= o)
The wicked man is felled by his own evil, while the
righteous man finds security in his death.
II)
EV KOKL<;l OUTOU
0 8E iTEiTOL9ws
rn
EGVTOV 0(7l0TTJTL
8tKalOS (- S)
The impious will be driven away by his evil, but he who is

secure in his own piety is just.
The reading of II), which clearly reflects
represents, according to Geiger* and
many others, a contextually correct and therefore original reading. According to this
view,
of m reflects an anti-Sadducean change, intended to present an idea (reward
after death) that was not acceptable to the Sadducees. Similarly, according to A. Rofe,
"The Onset of Sects in Postexilic Judaism: Neglected Evidence from the Septuagint,
Trito-Isaiah, Ben Sira, and Malachi" in The Social World of Formative Christianity and
Judaism, Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (ed. J. Neusner et al.; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988) 39-49 (40-41), II) in 1 Sam 7:6 reflects a Sadducean reading. On the whole,
possible evidence for Sadducean and anti-Sadducean changes is very slight (see further
Qoh 3:21 and Ps 49:12 as discussed by Geiger*, 175-6).
97 For some examples, see M. Meiser, "Samuelseptuaginta und Targum Jonathan als
Zeugen friihjtidischer Geistigkeit," in Karrer-Kraus, Septuaginta, 323-35.
98 Thenius (Lohr), BUcher Samuels; Wellhausen, BUcher Samuelis; S.R. Driver, Samuel; and
McCarter, Samuel do not remark on general features of m except for its textual
corruptions.-+ p. 189
99 Samuel does not provide more opportunity for theological changes than the other
books. However, it cannot be coincidental that the discussion of the euphemistic
corrections in the biblical realm in Schorch* 2000 draws mainly on m-Samuel.-+ iii. For
analyses of theological changes, see D. Barthelemy, "La qualite du Texte Massoretique
de Samuel," in Tov, Samuel, 1-44 (5-10); W. Dietrich, "Doch ein Text hinter den Texten?
Vorlaufige textkritische Einsichten eines Samuel-Kommentators," in Archaeology of the
Books of Samuel, 133-59 (141-59); P. Hugo, ''I' Archeologie textuelle du temple de
Jerusalem. Etude textuelle et litterare du motif theologique du temple en 2 Samuel,"
ibid., 161-212; D.W. Parry, "Hannah in the Presence of the Lord," ibid., 53-73 (70-72);
Hutzli, Ha1ma, 145-6, 214-16.
255
1 Sam 1:9
m
(\)
1 Sam 1:14
m+
;,nw
mn cpm (= cr: D)
;,':lw:::l
After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah

rose
+ Kal
EIJWITLOIJ Kup(ou+ (= s)
= ;,,;, J:::h
(d. 1:26; 3:10; 10:23)
T"l'O lJ""
"i"O;"T
Put away your wine

+ Kal. rropEuou
= ;,,;, "J:l':lO
(2) 1 Sam 1:25 m+
':l.!'
EK rrpoawrrou
Kup(ou+
(cf. Gen 41:46)
il'm
i:l;"T
,t:mw,
and they slaughtered the bull and brought the boy to

Eli
TCW 116axov Kal.
Kal.
Avva
ToD rrm8ap(ou rrpos- HA.L
"".!'
il'Ji1
mn
i:li1
t:lnw,
and he slaughtered the bull, and Hannah, the mother

of the boy, came to Eli
According to !lt+, unnamed persons bring the boy to Eli, while according to \\3,
Hannah came to Eli. The connection in !lt+ is problematic, since v 26, referring to
Hannah's conversation with Eli, is not connected to the previous verse, while \\3
presents a smooth connection. It is not impossible that the original wording was
changed in m in order to avoid mentioning another action of Hannah.
(3) 1 Sam 1:28
\\3
4QSam 3
m <!:
>
mi1':l ,]nnwm cw ,i1[:::lil'm 100
i1,i1"" cw mnw,
m and he bowed low there before the LORD/ 4QSam 3 [and she left] him [there]
and she bowed [before the LORD].
1 Sam 2:11a
\\3
4QSam 3
!lt+
i1,i1" "J:l':l cw ,i1:::lil'm
>?
i1iiOii1 1':lm 101
m+ And Elkanah went home to Ramah I 4QSam a > ? I \\3 and she left him there
before the LORD and she went to Ramah
The main actions described in 1:28 and 2:11, leaving Samuel at the Temple and
the bowing before the LORD, are ascribed to different persons in the various
textual traditions or are not mentioned at all (the bowing before the LORD is
lacking in \\3). According to 4QSam 3 , Hannah prostrates herself before the LORD in
the verse preceding the Song, and at that point she leaves Samuel at the Temple
(1:28). On the other hand, according to \\3*, Hannah leaves Samuel at the Temple
after the Song (2:11). \\3* and 4QSam 3 present an internally consistent and original
100 An alternative reconstruction would be 1fl[mm, based on the reconstruction of 2:11 by
Wellhausen, Samuel, 42.
101 KUL, KUTEALTTEV
,,
. , . - . ,
,
, . -,e
.
e
F
h
b
UVTOV EKEL EVWTTlOV KUplOU KaL UTTT]A EV ELS' Apj.la alj.l. Or t e tWO ver S,
we follow (against Rahlfs) the text of MS B, disregarding the main evidence of the Greek
tradition, which has plural forms (KaTEA(E )L TTOV, am1'A9ov) ..... Tov, "Hannah," 435
256
version. In 1:28, !TI+ reflects a revision that shifts to Elkanah, though not formally
identified in the text, a role that was originally ascribed to Hannah (113* and
4QSama). For a full analysis, see Tov, "Hannah."
(4) 1 Sam 2:20 m
;,1;,'-, '-,NiV iiVN (;,'-,NiV;1 nnn) ( = ([)
4QSama
= NJPS
(in place of the loan) he (?) made to the LORD

(DJD:
(in place of the loan) she made to the LORD
(avTL Tov XPEous-) ou EXPTJaas- TQ Kup[4J (= ([ o)
;11f!['-, ;,]'-,'NiZ.m iiVN[
4QSama conforms to the earlier story: it is Hannah who promised Samuel to God,
in the very same words (1:27-28). While m is unclear, it seems that Hannah has
been replaced with Elkanah as elsewhere in the context. 113 S D adapted the verb
to the context ("you lent to the LORD").
(5) 1 Sam 1:23 m
1i:::J.i nN ;,1;,' cp' lN (= ([D)
May the LORD fulfill His word.

4QSama
TElO
;i[1;1' cp' lNl (=II))
[May the LO]RD [fulfill] that which comes out of your

mouth
While m refers to the word of the LORD, 4QSama 113 refer to Hannah's vow. The
m phrase occurs often elsewhere (e.g. Deut 27:26; 1Kgs 2:4), while the alternative
phrase occurs in Num 30:3 in a context of vows: ;1iV.!J' 1'5l0
'-,::>::> 1i:::J.i '-,n N'-,,
"he must not break his word, but must carry out all that has crossed his lips
(literally: came out of his mouth)." We suggest that the reading of 4QSama 113 was
corrected by m ([D. The mentioning of the "word" of God reflects more reverence
towards God than the vow of a mere mortal, Hannah. This understanding ties in
with the aforementioned changes. 102
b. Linguistic-Stylistic Changes
Kutscher, Ltmguage; Sperber, Grammar, 476-636.
In the process of copying, the linguistic background of the scribes is

reflected in some changes inserted into manuscripts, as a rule
consciously, but sometimes unconsciously. Such changes are spotted in
ll.l (ch. 2, Tables 12, 13 [pp. 84-5]) and in many of the Qumran texts (ibid.,
Table 21 [pp. 103-4]). This paragraph contains additional examples
drawn from the linguistic-stylistic sphere.
1Qisaa replaced some rare words with more common ones, as did
Table 12 [pp. 84-5]) and, at an earlier stage, the Chronicler. 103
Isa 13:10
t:li1N
lll.
(ch. 2,
1":1" N'-, c;,'-,o:>1 C'OiZ.m ':::J.:l1:l ':l
For the stars of the heaven and their constellations

will not let their light shine.
1Qisaa
102 Alternatively, the reading of m ([ D was corrected towards that of 4QSarna (\), since the
"word" of the LORD is not mentioned earlier in the text.
l03see S. Japhet, "Interchanges of Verbal Roots in Parallel Texts in Chronicles," HS 28
(1987) 9-50.
257
The root ';1';1;"1 in the meaning of "to shine" appears only three times elsewhere in
Scripture (Job 29:3, 31:26, 41:10) and probably for this reason the scribe replaced it
with a more common root.
Isa 47:2
p1w
"Eltvn
remove your veil, strip off your train, uncover your

leg
is a hapax legomenon in the Bible and is not used in rabbinic Hebrew. On the
other hand, c';i1tD occurs frequently in similar contexts (Jer 13:22, 26; Lam 1:9; Nah
3:5). For the phrase, cf. especially Jer 13:26.
Linguistic differences are also exemplified by the following examples.
Gen 10:13
1 Chr 1:11
c"11';i
mK
c,,,,', (glide)
mO c"11';i
Deut 21:7
!ll K
i1:lEltD 1-6
(ancient form)
mO
1:lEltv (= w.)
Judg 9:8
ntK
(ancient form)
mo
c. Insertion of Synonymous Readings
Talmon, "Synonymous Readings" (2010 [1961]).
Many of the variants involve words that serve a similar or identical

function on the literary level, although their meaning is not necessarily
identical. These interchangeable words entered the manuscript tradition
at all stages of the transmission, both consciously and unconsciously.
They occur both in parallel sources of the same text (as in the first two
examples) or in different manuscripts of one text (as in the subsequent
examples). For example, the basic meanings of "]::l, "palm of the hand,"
and i\ "hand," differ, yet they were interchanged at the composition
level (probably orally) and subsequently also during the textual transmission as can be seen from the first example. The existence of these
synonymous readings also gave rise to textual doublets+ ...... Talman*
To the following examples from inner-m parallel texts and K-Q
variations, one should add those recorded in ch. 2, Table 16 (relating to
lll. I m) and I sa 36:11 (p. 124).
2 Sam 22:1
';i:l
';"1
after the LORD had saved him from the hand (lit. palm)
of all his enemies, and from the hand (lit. palm) of Saul
Ps 18:1
2 Sam 22:5
m
m
'?:l
';"1
":l ( =
For the waves of death encompassed me.
258
Ps 18:5
"J1ElElN ( =
The snares of death encompassed me.
Isa 39:2
('-,::l:J1 ;n:J:J 1i!"pTn CN,iT N'-, ... )
(... which Hezekiah did not show them in his house

and all) his realm
his kingdom
Isa 62:1
1Q lsa'1
iTWnN (N'-,
w,nN
The two verbs are synonymous ..... Isa 42:14. Both verbs occur elsewhere in Isaiah
(i!tvn 57:11; 62:6; 64:11; w,n 36:21; 41:1) ...... Talman, Qumran, 128
Alternative forms:
Gen 27:3
Jer 42:6
mK
mo
mK
mO
1JN
1JnJN
d. Harmonizations
Eshel, "4QDeutn" (1991); Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 37-42, 63-80; I. Kalimi, Zur Ceschichtsschreibung des Chrollisten: Literarisch-historiographische Abweiclwngen der Chronik von ihren
Paralle/texiCil ill dell Samuel- wzd Konigsbiicfzenz (BZAW 226; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter,
1995) 57-79; K.-R. Kim, Studies; Koenig, L'hermhzeutique ana/ogique (1982); E. Tov, "The
Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts," /SOT 31 (1985) 3-29;
id., "Textual Harmonizations" (2008).
Scribes adapted many elements in the text to other details in the same
verse, in the immediate or a similar context, in the same book and in
parallel sections elsewhere in Scripture. This phenomenon is termed
harmonizing (by most scholars) or analogy (Koenig* 1982). Examples of
typical textual harmonizations are given with regard to the lU-group (ch.
2, Table 10 [p. 83]), the medieval manuscripts of m (ch. 2, Table 4 [pp. 345]), and the Vorlage+ of IB-Torah (- p. 136, n. 228). Among the known
texts, harmonizations in small details are especially frequent in the
Vorlage of \B-Torah and the lU-group, although scholars usually connect
this phenomenon only with lU.
As an author, the Chronicler harmonized different details in his
Vorlage+-.- Kalimi*
Many of these harmonizations were made unconsciously (medieval
manuscripts of llt), while the majority were made consciously
and lU-group).
259
Additional examples:
Isa 1:15
!lt+
Your hands are stained with crime.

1Qlsaa
co1 i10::J"1"
Your hands are stained with crime, yourfinxers with
iniquity.
Cf. Isa 59:3
m+
11.IJ::l
c1::::1
t:l::J"::l::J :;, (= 113)
For your hands are defiled with crime, and your
fingers with iniquity.

1Qlsaa
111.IJ::l
t:l1:::l
i1t:l::J"::l::J
..... Similar additions in 1Qisaa: 34:4 (cf. Mic 1:4); 51:3 (cf. 35:10, 51:11); 51:6 (cf.
40:26); 52:12 (cf. 54:5).
Isa 60:4
'-,ll Tm::J,) = 1Qlsaa

(Your daughters) will be nursed (on <your> shoulders)
1Qlsab
'-,ll TnJ:::l,)
(Your daughters) will be carried (on <your> shoulders)

Cf. Isa 66:12
Jer 48:45
m
m
2QJer
Cf. Num 21:28
'-,ll
],no
i1:::li1'-,, ( = ([ D)
and a flame from the midst ofSihon

pno ]n,p6[ i1:::li1.,, (= S)
and a flame]from the city [of Sihon
1no
:1::Ji1" (= 113 cr: D)
e. Explanatory and Exegetical Additions to the Body of the Text

Delitzsch, Lese- und Schreibfehler, 132-43; G.R. Driver, "Glosses" (1957); M. Elyoenay
(Kantrowitz), "Explanations to Ancient Words of Difficult Meaning in the Text of the
Bible," in Hagut lvrit be'Eyropa (Heb.; Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1969) 41-8; Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretation, 38-43, 166-70; McCarter, Textual Criticism, 32-6; Klein, Textual Criticism, 32-6;
]. Krecher, "Giossen. A. In sumerischen und akkadischen Texten," Real/exikon der
Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archiiologie (Berlin I New York: de Gruyter, 1957-1971)
III.431-40; Reynolds-Wilson, Scribes & Scholars; E. Tov, "Glosses, Interpolations, and Other
Types of Scribal Additions in the Text of the Hebrew Bible," in Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999)
53-74; ]. Weingreen, "Rabbinic-Type Glosses in the Old Testament," JSS 2 (1957) 149-62.
Different types of explanatory and exegetical additions were made to the

text, both by the original scribes and by later scribes and readers. Since
no early sources are available (the Qumran scrolls, deriving from the
mid-third century BCE onwards, are relatively late in the textual history),
the existence of certain scribal practices is inferred from the textual
history of other texts from antiquity, from both the Sumero-Akkadian
and the Greek-Latin world.
260
Two main types of explanatory and exegetical elements were added to

the text in the margin, between the lines, or, in other scribal traditions, in
the text itself following the completion of the writing.I04
(1) Glosses. Short explanatory notes explaining difficult or obsolete words,
which were not meant to be integrated into the syntax of the running text, may
have been added by ancient Hebrew scribes in the margin or between the lines.
Direct evidence for this practice is lacking for the Hebrew Bible, but parallels of
marginal and interlinear additions in Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, and other
texts make the assumed practice likely also for Hebrew Scripture.- Tov* 1999.
Only one such example is known from the Qumran texts.
Isa 7:25
m+
i'Otv ( = \13)
thorn bush and thistle
lQisaa n'tvi i'Otv ',ri:J

iron thorn bush and
written above i'Otv)
(the interlinear addition is
The added word in lQisaa explains a word in the text.105

The biblical text contains very few instances of glosses, but some instances
stand out as possible glosses, viz., short explanations of names added to the
completed text either during the textual transmission or at an earlier stage. 106
(2) Exegetical additions (interpolations) were added to the body of the text in a
physically recognizable way, or inserted directly into the running text, thus
expanding the source from which the scribe copied. 107 As in the case of glosses,
the Qumran biblical texts contain virtually no interlinear or marginal interpolations (exegetical additions), but the following instance may present a
grammatical interpolation.
Isa 44:3
m+
llliT ',v mi
i1tv:::l' ',v c',m
':-v
co
Even as I pour water on thirsty soil, and rain upon dry

ground, <so> will I pour my spirit on your offspring.
1Qlsaa
',.!J 'n1i
P i1tD:::l' ',.!J c',T1J1
',v C'O
The word "so," added in modern translations, was likewise added in lQisaa
(above the line).
Many such added elements entered the text from which all textual witnesses
derived during the literary growth of the book or its scribal transmission. Most of
these assumed exegetical additions, usually incorrectly named glosses, are
104 1n the scribal tradition of Sumerian and Akkadian texts, these added elements were
distinguished from the earlier text by a special scribal sign.- Krecher*, 433
1051n the spoken language of the Second Temple period,
had a secondary meaning of
"iron," to which the glossator probably referred. - S. Lieberman, "Forgotten Meanings," Leslwnenu 32 (1967-1968) 99-102 (Heb.); E. Qimron, "Textual Remarks on 1Qlsa,"
Textus 12 (1985) 0--tll (He b. with Eng. summ.).
106o. G.R. Driver*, 124-6; Tov, TCHB 2, 279-80.
107 Scholars often create the impression that interpolations occur especially in Ezekiel and
Joshua. - Tov 1999. However, most presumed interpolations in these two books
probably have to be interpreted differently.- ch. 762, 3
261
evidenced in all the textual witnesses, while some are lacking in a select number
of sources:
Gen 14:22
;,Jp p'-,ll
;,1;,
'i' no,;, CiO 1'-,o
t::'OiD (= ([0 Ps-J N D)
But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I swear to the

God Most High, creator of heaven and earth."
and 1QapGen XXII 21 omit ;"11;"1'
LORD,
ll1
The presumably original form of this verse, reflected in the short version
S,
and 1QapGen, referred to God as ]1''-,ll, "Most High," a term that also appears in
Canaanite texts, in which 'Elyon has the function of mp, "creator," as here.l 08 By
adding ;"11;"1', "the LORD," m<!: D are identifying "Most High" as the God of Israel,
as if Abram was addressing Him. The presumably original form of the text is also
preserved in m in v 19: "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, creator of heaven
and earth."
-+
1 Kgs 8:2 (p. 268) and the addition from Jer 9:22-23
1 Sam 2:9 (p. 246).
f. Midrash-Like Changes and Additions
Some textual changes resemble midrash+ exegesis, also named "theological."

1 Sam 1:22
!11+
He <Samuel> must stay there

+ 1"n] o '-,1::l c'-,1ll ill ,.TJ 1;,n[m1 c'-,1ll ill +
+ ... forever and I shall de]dicate him as a nazir all the
days [of his life +
From v 11, it is clear that Samuel was to be a nazir (thus Ben Sira 46:13 and m.
Nazir 9.5), and even more so from a plus
in that verse ("and wine and strong
drink he shall not drink"), yet the actual term is not used in m
Numbers
6; Judg 13:5, 7. In the textual tradition of Samuel, the term occurs only in 4QSama
as part of a long plusJ09
4QSama
1 Sam 2:14
m+
np ,'-,m;, ;,'-,ll
'-,::l
whateve_r the fork brought up he would

4QSama
;"TT ]no i:J'-, :::l1c:i [
ll,]
np ,',To;, ;,'-,ll
'-,[ 1::l]
(col. III 4-5) ro;, p[1iD1 ;,::mn;,

[wha]tever the fork brought up, he would take, either
[bad or] good, in addition to the [waved br]east and
the right thi[gh]
4QSama expanded the description of the priest's duties based on the prescription
of Lev 7:30-34, thus increasing the sins of Eli's sons.
According to Rofe, "Midrashic Traits," several additional readings in this
scroll are midrashic (such as 2 Sam 24:16-17; 1 Samuel 11 ..... ch. 7B10) causing him
108 on the background of the two words, see B. Mazar, "Ba'al samem," Erlsr 16 (1982) 1324 (Heb. with Eng. summ.); H. Niehr, "Der hochste Gott," BZAW 190 (1990) 119-40.
109 See M. Tsevat, "Was Samuel a Nazi rite?" in Fishbane, Slza 'arei Talman, 199-204.
262
to rename this scroll as 4QMidrash Samuei. 110 In Rofe's writing, nomistic

changes are a subgroup of midrashic changes ...... pp. 252-3. The addition of a
"Song of Miriam" in 4QRJX (4Q365) 6aii and 6c may also be named midrashic .
..... ch. 7B23
A special group of midrashic changes are in the area of the halakhah, 111 often
in harmonizing pluses.11 2
110 Thus also id., "4QMidrash Samuel?" and "A Scroll of Samuel or Midrash Samuel? The
Transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem according to 4Q51," Meghillot V-VI (Heb.; Jerusalem/
Haifa: Bialik Institute I Haifa University Press, 2007) 237-43.
111 See Prijs, fUdische Tradition, 1-19; A. Teeter, "'You Shall Not Seethe a Kid in Its Mother's
Milk': The Text and the Law in Light of Early Witnesses," Textus 24 (2009) 37-63 with
much bibliography; L.H. Schiffman, "The Septuagint and the Temple Scroll: Shared
'Halakhic' Variants," in id., The Courtyard of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple
Scroll (STDJ 75; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008) 85-98.
112 One such example is mentioned on p. 136, n. 2,28. B.N. Levinson, "The Right Chorale":
Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (FAT 54; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 112-44
analyzes in detail the harmonizing addition to Deut 13:7 min 1U (!} 4QDeutc and 11QTa.
5
THEORY AND PRAXIS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Barthelemy, Etudes (1978) 365--81; id., Interim Report (1979-1980); Brooke, "Demise"; Childs,
Introduction, 84-106; F.M. Cross, "Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible," in O'Flaherty, Critical Study, 31-54; Deist, Text; id., Witnesses; Fischer, Text,
185-204; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, "The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise,
Decline, Rebirth," JBL 102 (1983) 365-99; Jepsen, "Aufgaben"; E.J. Kenney, "History,
Textual Criticism," The New EncBrit, Macropaedia (lS'h ed.; Chicago: Encyclopaedia
Britannica Inc., 1985) 20.676-85; Kittel, Notwendigkeit; van der Kooij, "Textual Criticism;
Maas, Textual Criticism (1958); Margolis, "Scope"; Noth, Old Testament World, 358-63;
O'Flaherty, Critical Study; H.M. Orlinsky, "The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," in
Essays in Honor of W.F. Albright, 140-69; Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism"; J.P.
Postgate, "Textual Criticism," EncBrit (1929) 14.708-15; Reynolds-Wilson, Scribes & Scholars,
207-41; J.A. Thompson, "Textual Criticism, Old Testament," IDBSup, 886-91; ]. Thorpe,
Principles of Textual Criticism (San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1972); Tur-Sinai, ktby
hqds; Volz, "Arbeitsplan" (1936); B.K. Waltke, "Aims of Old Testament Textual Criticism,"
WTJ 51 (1989) 93-108; Wegner, Textual Criticism, 23-43; Wiirthwein, Text.
The preceding chapters provided a description of the textual witnesses

(ch. 2), of the history of the biblical texts (ch. 3), and of the textual
transmission (ch. 4). In this chapter, we turn briefly to the question of
what should be done with the rich store of information included in the
textual witnesses. While the contents of the non-Masoretic witnesses,
including the Judean Desert scrolls and , are often disregarded in
commentaries and introductions ..... pp. 160-61, it would seem more
appropriate to use these data within the exegetical procedure. However,
when turning to textual data, problems pile up to such an extent that
some scholars shrink away from using them. These problems are visible
both at the theoretical end (guidelines for the use of the textual data) and
at the practical level (which variants+ should be used by exegetes and
how?). At both levels, there are no firm answers and no generally
accepted views. The discussion of the shape of the biblical text in early
periods (ch. 3B) is of central importance to this analysis.
A. Theory of Textual Criticism
The discussion of the practical aspects of textual criticism in the next
chapters (ch. 6, 8, 9) depends upon an analysis of its essence and aims.
264
Chapter 5: Textual Praxis
For a better understanding of the nature of the textual criticism of the

Hebrew Bible, it is helpful to contrast this discipline with the textual
analysis of other compositions. For example, in one of the important
methodological discussions in this area, Maas* 1958, 1, writes:
The business of textual criticism is to produce a text as close as
possible to the original (constitutio textus)."
Postgate* (in EncBrit [1929] 709) provided a more extensive definition:

The aim of the "textual critic" may then be defined as the restoration
of the text, as far as possible, to its original form, if by "original form"
we understand the form intended by its author.
When these definitions are applied to Hebrew Scripture, several

points emerge:
The two definitions mention the originaHorm of the text rather than that of
the composition contained in the text. Maas* and Postgate* were probably aware
that sometimes the final form of the text differed from earlier developmental
stages of the composition. Therefore, the above-mentioned definitions can be
applied to the Hebrew Bible in the following way: as a rule, textual criticism of
the Hebrew Bible aims neither at the compositions written by the biblical authors,
nor at previous oral stages, if such existed, but only at that stage (those stages) of
the composition(s) that is (are) attested in the textual evidence. The very
assumption of earlier stages is based merely on logical deductions and cannot be
proven.-pp. 167,283-5
According to the definitions suggested in ch. 3B, one of the aims of textual
criticism is to learn about details in the "original" or determinative form(s) of the
biblical books. Some scholars assert that we ought to reconstruct that or those
forms. Some will go as far as suggesting which putative stage in the development
of the books we ought to reconstruct and some scholars mention specific
centuries.
Adherents of the oral tradition school are necessarily compelled to work with
a broader definition of the goals of textual criticism. According to their view, 1 the
books of the Hebrew Bible never existed in one original written form, but only in
parallel oral formulations.
Another problem arising from defining the aims of textual criticism
concerns the practical aspects of the textual analysis. The two above-mentioned
scholars state that in general textual criticism aims at establishing a text. The
implication of this statement is that textual critics aim at establishing a critical
edition by selecting from the texts the readings+ that, according to the editor,
were included in the "original" text. If the need arises, elements of this original
text are also reconstructed by means of conjectural emendation+.
These definitions show that textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible differs from
textual criticism of other compositions, for there have been relatively few
1
Nyberg, "Problem"; J. van der Ploeg, "Le role de Ia tradition orale dans Ia transmission
du texte de I' Ancien Testament," RB 54 (1947) 5-41; Bentzen, Introduction, 1.92 and
Appendix, p. 6; R.B. Coote, "The Application of Oral Theory to Biblical Hebrew
Literature," Semeia 5 (1976) 60-62.
265
attempts to reconstruct the original text of a biblical book, for theoretical as well
as practical reasons ...... pp. 359-63. Most of the existing critical editions are
editions of m that record variant readings in an accompanying critical apparatus+
(diplomatic+ editions), while the apparatuses of the BH series also contain
conjectural emendations+.
The problems with which the textual critic is confronted are not confined to
biblical research since other literatures, such as several Akkadian compositions,
also developed in a similar way through complex stages of literary (editorial)
revision and textual transmission ...... p. 285, n. 6. Likewise, Homer's Iliad and
Odyssey went through several stages of textual manipulation ...... p. 165, n. 23. At
the same time, it seems that textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible raises unusually
difficult problems, partly because these two literatures are better preserved in
early witnesses.
In light of this discussion, it is now possible to formulate the aims and method
of the textual criticism of the Bible. The study of the biblical text involves an
investigation of its development, copying and transmission, and of the creation
of readings over the centuries. In the course of this procedure, textual critics
collect from Hebrew and translated texts all the details (readings) in which these
texts differ from one another. Some of these readings were created during the
textual transmission, while others derive from an earlier stage, that of the literary
growth. Scholars try to isolate and evaluate the readings that were created during
the textual transmission by comparing them with other textual data, especially m,
while treating readings created at earlier stages (literary readings) separately .
..... ch. 7. The difficulty in distinguishing between readings of these two types
complicates the textual evaluation+ to such an extent that some scholars avoid
textual evaluation altogether. ..... p. 162. Most scholars believe that this evaluation
involves a reconstruction of elements included in the original or determinative
text(s) of the Bible, as defined on p. 167. With the aid of this procedure, scholars
create tools for exegesis.
B. Praxis of Textual Criticism

The textual praxis consists of the analysis of the textual data and their
use in biblical exegesis and involves two sets of data: (1) the biblical text
as found in Hebrew sources and reflected in the ancient translations; (2)
the conjectural emendation+ of the biblical text invoked when neither the
Hebrew manuscripts nor the ancient versions preserve satisfactory
evidence. - ch. 8. The first area may be called textual criticism proper,
while the second is supplementary to it.2
Textual criticism proper is subdivided into two stages: (1) collecting
Hebrew readings and reconstructing them from the ancient versions
(chapters 2, 4, 7); (2) evaluation of these readings (ch. 6). This process
involves all Hebrew and reconstructed details (readings) that differ from
2
Barthelemy* 1978, 368 named the first area critique textue/Le interne, "internal textual
criticism," and the second, critique textue/Le externe, "external textual criticism."
266
an accepted form of m, viz., pluses, minuses, differences in letters, words,

and the sequence of words, as well as differences in vocalization+, word
division+, and sense divisions+. m (usually codex V) is taken as the point
of departure for describing textual variations because it has become the
textus receptus+ (received text) of Hebrew Scripture, but this procedure
does not imply a preference for its contents. In the course of this
comparison, we ought to remember that most early sources of the biblical
text have been lost. Thus, although readings in the ancient witnesses, e.g.
are compared with m, there may have been several intervening stages
between that source and m, but that complication does not invalidate the
procedure itself. All details in manuscripts are considered readings,
while readings differing from mare named variants.3
As a rule, the collation of Hebrew variants from biblical manuscripts is
relatively simple as long as scholars agree that a specific text is indeed an
authoritative Scripture text. Somewhat more complicated is the reconstruction of
variant readings from the ancient translations ...... pp' 122-7. The collecting of
variants from quotations in non-biblical sources and the Scripture text as
excerpted and rewritten in antiquity is equally complex ...... p. 114
After collecting variants from Hebrew and translated texts, scholars usually
compare them with their counterparts in m with the implication that reading a
may be preferable to all other readings, also phrased as the assumption that all
other readings may have derived from that reading ...... pp. 280--81. If a scribal
development such as textual corruption of reading a to other readings is
assumed, the aim of this comparison is to select the one reading that was
presumably contained in the original form of the text as defined on pp. 167-9.
Scholars who presuppose more than one original or determinative form would
still follow this procedure when textual corruption is posited, necessitating the
assumption of one original text at least in the case of genetic+ readings. Due to
the vicissitudes of the textual transmission, in any given verse, m may contain an
original reading in one detail, while the original reading for another detail may
be contained in 113.
The comparative evaluation of variants described in ch. 6 is necessarily
subjective. This procedure is limited to readings created during the textual
transmission, excluding those created during the literary growth of the book,
even though they are included in textual witnesses. It remains difficult to decide
to which readings textual analysis should be applied and which readings should
be left without evaluation. However, the latter type of procedure is novel in
scholarship, and even if two scholars agree in principle that some variants should
be left untouched by textual evaluation, they often disagree regarding the details .
..... pp. 355-6. As an aid for clarifying the issues involved, section c below
exemplifies the different types of readings that, in our view, need to be analyzed
or disregarded within textual criticism.
3
Some scholars use the term "variants" in the same neutral way that the term "readings"
is used in this book and elsewhere ...... Westcott-Hort, NT, 11.3
267
C. Different Types of Variants
This section: exemplifies different types of variants, to be evaluated (I) and

disregarded (II) within textual criticism. The terms used below are
explained on pp. 167-9, inch. 6, and in the Glossary (pp. 415-21).
Translator's exegesis (no variant)

Exod 32:26
Josh 4:14
..... p. 119
-+ p. 119
I. Variants That Need to Be Evaluated (Genetic+ Variants)

1. Orthographic+ Variants4
Gen 24:41b
lll
Gen 49:17
lll
M"PJ ..... p. 90
]1:l:lrD ..... p. 90
Isa 61:2
..... p. 101
1Qisa3
2. Linguistic Varian ts 5
Gen49:4
lll
Isa 33:1
1Qisa3
Isa 47:2
,oin
,,mn
l:::l
l:::l
<apocopated form>
<regular form> -+ p. 87
<regular form>
<"pausal" form>
I 1Qisa 3 T'?,rv -+ p. 257
3. Content Variants
a. Scribal Transmission (Unintentional Variants)

1 Sam 1:24
Jer 29:26
Jer 48:45
m
m
/ 4QSam 3 rv'?rvo ,P:J []:J

..... p. 236
'i1 n:J
I 'i1 n:J:J
..... p. 238
]1n"O po i1:Ji1'?, I 2QJer 1mo ]n,p6[ i1:Ji1'?, ..... p. 259
b. Scribal Activity (Intentional Variants)

l):Jrvi1 I w. rvrvi1 ..... p. 244
Gen 2:2
m
1 Sam 2:16
4
P,"t:lP" ,t:lp I 4QSam3 ]i11::li1 ,t:lP" ..... p. 253
Orthographic variants involving the addition/ omission of matres lectionis+ are necessarily related in a genetic way because the spelling of certain words was changed during
the course of the transmission of the biblical text. Usually, matres lectionis were added to
defective readings. Orthographic variants are variant readings just like any other type
of variants.
Linguistic variants usually involve the replacement of one form with another, often in
agreement with certain trends. If the trend is known, the genetic relation is clearly
indicated, but often it is not. The use of the term "linguistic" is not universally accepted
among scholars. For example, Cross calls lengthened forms like
and
orthographic-+ p. 101, as well as 4QSam 3
form 1"liliJ1 in 1 Sam 1:11 (DJD XVII, 9).
268
II. Variants That Need Not Be Evaluated (Non-Genetic Variants [see p.

168])
1. Synonymous+ Readings 6
Exod 2:10
Num 21:5
Isa 39:2
lsa 62:1
m ,,.;, I w.
..... p. 87
m
I w.
..... p. 87
m
I 1Qisaa
..... p. 258
m i1tvnN I 1Qisaa iD"1nN ..... p. 258
2. Differences Created in the Course of the Literary Growth
a. Extensive Differences (exemplified by {S)-feremiah and {S)-Ezekie/)

.....
.....
.....
.....
Jer 27:19
Jer 27:22
Jer 29:16-20
Ezek 1:27
p. 325
p. 325
p. 325
p. 325
BHQ developed a notation ("lit") that was meant to bypass textual evaluation ......
pp. 355-6 ( v, dd). Thus, BHQ refers to several important differences between m
and apocryphal sources as "lit" without further remarks: Esth 1:1, 3:13, 4:17, 5:1,
8:12, 10:3 in references to the "Additions"
and
Ezra 2:25, 28, 31, 47;
Neh 8:6, etc. in references to 1 Esdras when differing from in !Tt+ in EzraNehemiah.
b. Minor Differences
1 Kgs 8:2
m+ N1i1
n1:::1 ,N,tv tvN ':;,
'N ,,;,p1
{"ll"::Jtvi1 tv1ni1
All the men of Israel gathered before king Solomon

in Jerusalem in the month of Ethanim {at the Feastthat is {hu ']the seventh month.}
lacks the italicized words.
The minus element
which may also be considered a plus of !H+, contains
the first mention of "the Feast" (of Tabernacles) in the historical books. Compare
Neh 8:14, which mentions that the Israelites dwelt in booths during the feast of
the seventh month.
See further 1 Kgs 16:34 lacking in
(MSS boczez) ..... ch. 7B25, and the
tendentious change in m-Deut 32:43 ...... ch. 4, Table 8 (pp. 249-50)
For some scholars, the existence of pristine parallel readings is axiomatic, and hence in
the system of the OHB+ there is room for readings that are of "equal" value. E.g. in 1
reconstructed from 5 and
Kgs 11:5, for
of m the apparatus records a variant
named "equal" by the editor, Joosten, in Crawford-Joosten-Uirich, OHB, 359.
6
EVALUATION OF READINGS
"But the worst of having no judgment is that one never misses it ... "
(A.E. Housman in the introduction to his edition of M. Manilius,
Astronomicon [London: G. Richards, 1903] xxxi).
B. Albrektson, "Difficilior Lectio Probabilior," in id., Text, 73-86; G.L. Archer, A Survey of
Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964) 50-53; Barth-Steck, Exegese, 37-44;
Barthelemy, Interim Report (1974-1980); Brooke, "Demise"; S. Davidson, A Treatise on
Biblical Criticism, Exhibiting a Systematic View of That Science (Boston: Gould & Lincoln, 1853
= Edinburgh: Black, 1854) 382-7; A.E. Housman, "The Application of Thought to Textual
Criticism," Proceedings of the Classical Association 18 (1922) 67-84 = Collected Poems and
Selected Prose (ed. C. Ricks; London: Lane, 1988) 325-39; Klein, Textual Criticism, 69-75;
Noth, Old Testament World, 358-63; Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism"; J.R. Royse,
"Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament," in The Text of
the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays 011 the Status Quaestionis (ed. B.D.
Ehrman & M.W. Holmes; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995) 239-52; M. Silva, "Internal
Evidence in the Text-Critical Use of the LXX," in Ln Septuaginta en Ia investigacio11
contemporanea (ed. N. Fernandez Marcos; TECC 34; Madrid: CSIC, 1985) 151-67; H.P. Smith,
Samuel (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1899; repr. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969) 395-402; Steck,
Exegesis, 39-47; J.A. Thompson, "Textual Criticism, Old Testament," lDBSup, 888-91;
Walton, Prolegomena, 1.36-7; Volz, "Arbeitsplan" (1936); Wegner, Textual Criticism, 120-39.
A. Background
Following the description of the textual praxis in ch. 5B-c, we now turn
to the evaluation of readings. Most scholars state that their intention is to
choose the one reading from among the variants that was most likely to
have been contained in the original text+, or the reading from which their
existence can be explained. -+ p. 280. Scholars who, for a variety of
reasons, are opposed to the search for original readings (e.g. Brooke*)
will nevertheless have to be involved in some form of evaluation
process, since they agree that all ancient sources, including m, contain
corrupt readings.-+ pp. 9-11; Brooke*. Readings that were created at the
literary growth stage of the book, when different determinative versions
of that book existed, are, in our view, excluded from textual evaluation
(see ch. 7c for an analysis and ch. Sc for examples).
This chapter deals with the thinking process behind the evaluation of
the readings.
270
B. Textual Guidelines
Biblical scholars make frequent use of textual guidelines for evaluation,

even though it is questionable whether any fixed or objective criteria
exist. In our critical review of these rules in the next pages, we develop a
rather negative view of their validity and practicality. - p. 279. We
suggest that common sense should be the textual critic's main guide when
attempting to locate the most contextually appropriate reading. At the
same time, abstract rules are sometimes also helpful.
Since the 17th century, 1 textual guidelines have been described for the
textual analysis of Hebrew Scripture, initially for the "correction" of m,
for example, in the 17th century by Walton, Prolegomena, in the 18th
century by Houbigant and Glassius,2 in the 19th century by de Rossi,
Porter, Davidson, de Wette, Loisy, Kennedy, Smith, and Thenius,3 and in
the 20th century by Steuernagel, Coppens, Bentzen, Noth, Archer, Payne,
Klein, Thompson, Barth-Steck, Deist, Wtirthwein, Barthelemy, Hayes,
and several others. 4
Some scholars realized the limitations of employing textual guidelines. For example, Davidson*, 383 wrote:
Many writers have tried to frame general rules, by which an accurate
judgment may be formed concerning various readings. But we are
satisfied that such rules as we have seen propounded are of little if
2
3
The earliest list of guidelines suggested for the comparison of readings in the Hebrew
Bible is that of Walton* in 1657 (republished by Wrangham, Prolegomena, 332-6). Other
rules for the correction of m or for the detection of errors were suggested by Cappellus,
Critica Sacra (1650) 299-314 and J. Le Clerc (Clericus), Ars Critica (Amsterdam: Gallet,
1697) xvi. In this area, students of Hebrew Scripture have usually followed the lead of
other disciplines, especially classical and New Testament scholarship. For example,
Cappellus, the author of the first full-scale critical analysis of the text and versions of
Hebrew Scripture, quoted extensively from H. Estienne's textual treatment of Cicero: In
Marci Tulii Ciceronis quamplurimos locos castigationes (Paris, 1577) vi-xii.
Houbigant, Notae criticae (1777) cxvi-cxxiv; Glassius, Phi/alogia (1795) 454-8.
].B. de Rossi, Introduzione alia sacra Scrittura (Parma, 1817) 99-100; J.S. Porter, Principles
of Textual Criticism: With Their Application to the Old and New Testaments (London: Simms
& M'lntyre, 1848); Davidson* 1853, 382-7; W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historischkritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Biicher des A/ten Testaments (8'h
ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1869) 233--40; A. Loisy, Histoire critique du texte et des versions de Ia
Bible (Amiens: Rousseau-Leroy, 1892) 1.239 ff.; J. Kennedy, An Aid to the Textual
Amendment of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928) 189-231; Smith* 1899;
Thenius (Lohr), Biicher Samuels (1898) xc-xcii.
Steuernagel, Einleitung (1912) 72-3; ]. Coppens, "La critique du texte hebreu de I' Ancien
Testament," Bib 25 (1944) 9-49; Bentzen, Introduction, 1.94-8; Noth, Old Testament World,
358-63; Archer*, 50-53; Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism," 99-112; Klein, Textual Criticism, 69-75; Thompson*; Barth-Steck*, 37-44; Deist, Text, 243-7; Wurthwein,
Text, 130-32; id., Text (English) 118-19; Barthelemy*, v-xxxii; Hayes, Introduction, 80-81.
For a discussion of similar analyses in the area of the New Testament, see Royse*.
271
any use. No one is guided by them in practice. Nor can they secure an
accurate judgment in all cases.
However, Davidson himself provided a very long list of such rules. 5

Other scholars believe that the application of intrinsically correct rules
forms the key to an objective evaluation. For example, Volz, "Arbeitsplan" (1936) 107 believed in the effectiveness of a "Regelbuch" (book of
rules), which in the meantime has been written. -+ Barthelemy, Interim
Report(1974-1980)
Rules that are necessarily abstract can be made more acceptable and
seemingly objective by the use of tangible examples. However, the fact
that these rules are usually presented without illustrating examples 6
seems to indicate that scholars did not wish to commit themselves by
offering examples. Since most examples may be explained by alternative
means, it is difficult to present examples that unequivocally prove the
correctness of any rule.
We now turn to the criteria suggested in the literature. A distinction is
often made between external and internal criteria (considerations)
relating to the evaluation of readings. External criteria pertain to the
document in which the reading is found, whereas internal criteria have a
bearing on the intrinsic value of the reading itself. The frequent reference
to external considerations derives from NT textual criticism, where these
criteria were used as textual guidelines from the 17th century onward?
The following external criteria have been brought to bear on the
evaluation of readings in the textual criticism of Hebrew Scripture. 8
1. External Criteria
a. Unequal Status ofTextual Sources

In the words of Klein, Textual Criticism, 74,
5
6
7
Ibid., 382-7. For similar remarks, see Hayes, Introduction, 80.

An exception should be made for Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism."
For details, see Epp, Perspectives, 125-9; id., 'Textual Criticism, New Testament,"
IDBSup (1976) 891-5. These criteria have been summarized by Epp, Perspectives, 158 as
follows:
"A variant's support by the earliest manuscripts, or by manuscripts assuredly
preserving the earliest texts.
A variant's support by the 'best quality' manuscripts <this criterion represents, in
fact, both internal and external considerations as defined below>.
A variant's support by manuscripts with the widest geographical distribution.
A variant's support by one or more established groups of manuscripts of recognized
antiquity, character, and perhaps location, that is, of recognized 'best quality."'
The first scholar to use external criteria as a separate group was probably Davidson*,
while some of these criteria were used individually before him; see, e.g., Walton*.
272
A variant that occurs in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan

Pentateuch, or LXX will probably be given more attention than if it
appears in a Targum or in one of the daughter translations of the LXX.
By similar reasoning, readings in certain Qumran texts and in m are often
regarded as inferior because these texts contain many secondary readings ...... p.
184. However, all arguments based on the unequal status of texts are
questionable. In principle, all ancient readings have an equal status, without
relation to the text 9 or translation 10 in which they are found. Although there is
certainly some statistical validity for the preference of certain textual witnesses
over others, this judgment should not influence the evaluation of individual
readings. Statistical information is irrelevant when data are evaluated. 11
The view expressed here reflects a "conservative" textual approach that is not
influenced by the relation between texts and their nature, and that has been
formulated as follows by de Lagarde, Anmerkungen, 3, n. 1 for manuscripts
ich glaube ... dass keine hds der LXX- so gut ist, dass sie nicht oft
genug schlechte lesarten, keine so schlecht dass sie nicht mitunter ein
gutes kornchen bote [I believe ... that no manuscript of the LXX is so
good that it contains no bad readings, and that not one is so bad that
it does not contain an occasional pearl].
The main exception to this understanding concerns medieval Hebrew
manuscripts, since most of their variants were created at a late stage, often as late
as the Middle Ages themselves ...... p. 39. Therefore, some form of prejudice must
be allowed for in the evaluation process.
b. Preference for m
Many scholars make statements such as "all other things being equal, the
reading of m should be preferred." Since this formulation implies the
unequal nature of textual witnesses, it presents a variation of the
previous rule. For example, Wi.irthwein states: 12
Thus, readings in lll and some Qumran texts, such as 1Qlsaa, should not be given less
attention due to the fact that these texts contain many secondary readings when
compared tom ...... ch. 2, Tables 10-13, 21-22
10 The reconstruction of variants from the ancient versions is precarious ..... pp. 122-7, but
once retroverted reliably into Hebrew, such variants and Hebrew readings have an
equal claim to originality. As a result, reconstructed variants should not be treated
differently based on the status of the translation in which they are found.
11 Consequently, the brief evaluations of the individual textual witnesses in each of the
biblical books by McCarter, Textual Criticism, 87-94 are necessarily of limited value and
may give rise to misunderstandings.
12 Wi.irthwein, Text, 131; id., Text (English), 116.
273
As a general rule m is to be preferred over all other traditions

whenever it cannot be faulted either linguistically or for its material
content, unless in particular instances there is good reason for
favoring another tradition. 13
Readings of m are often preferable to those found in other texts, but this
statistical information should not influence decisions in individual instances,
because the exceptions to this situation are not predictable.l 4 When judgments
are involved, statistical information should be considered less relevant, although
it certainly influences scholars unconsciously. Furthermore, m is no more reliable
than II) or certain Qumran texts. The application of this rule reflects an inappropriate preference form.
It should be noted that criteria a and b, although seemingly reflecting external
criteria, actually combine internal and external evidence. 15
c. Broad Attestation
It is often claimed that the trustworthiness of a reading is directly related
to the broadness of its attestation.l 6 Sometimes, a scholar will stress the
wide geographical distribution (-+Archer*, 52) or, at other times, a
narrow one, as, for example, Barthelemy and others:
If a form of the text occurs in only one tradition, for example, the
Targum, Syriac, or Vulgate, one is less inclined to regard it as original
than if it occurs in more than one such tradition. 17
However, reliance on a broad attestation of textual evidence is neither

profitable in the case of Hebrew manuscripts nor in that of the ancient versions,
for it could have been created by a historical coincidence. Long ago it was
recognized that manuscripta ponderantur, non numerantur (on p. 39, n. 34 this rule
J. Meritan, La
Persian grecque des livres de Samuel, precedee d'une introduction sur Ia critique textuelle
(Paris, 1898) 58; Noth*, 359; Thompson*, 888; Segal, mbw' hmqr', IV.883; Barth-Steck*,
13 For a similar argumentation, see Thenius (Lohr), BUcher Samuels, xci;
41.
14 Thus also Wellhausen, BUcher Samuelis, passim; P. Katz, "Septuagintal Studies in the
Mid-Century--'-Their Links with the Past and Their Present Tendencies," in The
Background of the New Testament m1d Its Eschatology (ed. W.W. Davies & D. Daube;
Cambridge: University Press, 1956) 199; Smith*, 399 reacting against Thenius (n. 13):
"Where G and H show variant readings, both being grammatically intelligible, they
have prima facie equal claims to attention, and the decision between them must be made
on the ground of internal probability."
15 An initial preference for many elements in a given text, based on internal
considerations, leads by way of induction to a general preference for that text. That
preference then yields an external criterion that is used in individual instances by way
of deduction.
16 The first to make this claim was probably Walton*, 1.37 (Wrangham, Prolegomena, 1.334):
"Quae lectio cum pluribus et melioris notae codicibus congruit praeferenda est ei, quae
paucioribus vel non ita accurate scriptis codicibus nititur."
17 Barthelemy*, ix. However, the Report hastens to add: "On the other hand, in treating
textual evidence, one must not count text traditions, one must weigh them."
Furthermore, "factor 2" of Barthelemy warns against a misleading broad base.
274
is applied to medieval Hebrew manuscripts). The same argument may be used in

regard to the ancient versions. Several versions may be interdependent, as in the
and Symmachus and Aquila on kaige-Th+.
case of the reliance of Jerome (D)
-+ pp. 145, 153. Readings should be judged on the basis of their intrinsic value,
and consequently even minority readings may be preferable to well-attested
variants. Textual criticism does not proceed according to democratic rules.
d. Age of Textual Witnesses

Older witnesses are often presented as being preferable to more recent
ones, l8 because "the older one is likely to have been less exposed to
textual corruption than the younger one" (Deist, Text, 232). For this
reason, m is sometimes dismissed as "die ji.ingste und schlechteste Form
des Bibeltextes <the most recent and worst form of the biblical text>"
(Nyberg, "Problem," 242).
Reliance on the age of documents is seemingly desirable, because the closer
the document is to the time of the original text+ (the autograph+), the more likely
it is to have preserved the wording of that text. However, some copyists
preserved their source better than others. For example, the community that
transmitted m has left the biblical text virtually unchanged for some two
thousand years since the time of the proto-Masoretic texts from the Judean
Desert -+ p. 29, whereas many Qumran scrolls (the QSP+) changed the
orthography, morphology, and content of the text. Thus, lQisaa, dating to the l't
century BCE, is further removed from the original text of Isaiah than a Masoretic
manuscript written in the lOth century CE. Given such exceptional cases, the
fallacy of dependence upon the age of witnesses was recognized long ago. 19
In addition to the above-mentioned external criteria, the geographical

provenance of readings is sometimes used as a criterion for originality, 20
usually in connection with other criteria.
l8 Walton*, I.37 (Wrangham, Prolegomena, I.334) was probably the first to make this claim:
"Quae ex codicibus antiquioribus elicitur lectio, 'ceteris paribus', praeferri debet ei quae
ex recentioribus colligitur."
19 In the 18th century, J.S. Semler, Hermeneutische Vorbereitung (Halle: Hemmerde, 1765)
3/1.88 showed that some late NT manuscripts contain readings that are closer to the
original text than older texts, and accordingly he reckoned with the internal and
external antiquity of codices. In recent research, too, reliance on the age of documents
has been strongly criticized, especially by G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del
testa (2"d ed.; Florence: Le Monnier, 1971) 41-108 in a chapter entitled "Recentiores non
deteriores" [recent documents are not <necessarily> worse <than older ones>].
20 Especially by those scholars who adhere to a theory of local texts (recensions). -+ pp.
173-4; Klein, Textual Criticism
275
2. Internal Criteria
The above discussion has shown that external criteria are usually not
valid in the case of Hebrew Scripture. We now turn to internal criteria
bearing on the intrinsic value and content of the readings. 21
The internal criteria used in the textual criticism of Hebrew Scripture
are listed exhaustively by Schenker, "General Introduction" (2004)
LXXXV-XCIV. The following are the most frequently used.
a. Lectio Difficilior Praeferenda/Praevalet/Praestat
This rule ("the more difficult reading is to be preferred") 22 has been

phrased in different ways. For example:
When a text was particularly difficult, there was a tendency for
ancient scribes and translators to simplify the text by employing
contextually more fitting lexical, grammatical, and stylistic forms
(these modifications are often spoken of as "facilitating"). 23
When textual variation is encountered, one of the readings is sometimes

termed the "difficult" reading, and the other(s), the "easy" reading(s),
with the implication that the former has a preferable (original) status.
This rule is logical, as some "difficult" readings were indeed replaced by
scribes with simpler ones. For example, in Gen 2:2 (pp. 244-5), "on the
seventh day" in m<r: 0 Ps-J N Dis the more difficult reading (at the theological level) as opposed to "on the sixth day" in lli S and Jubilees 2:16.
This also pertains to the rare word sobel in m of Isa 47:2, replaced by
sulayikh in 1Qisa3 . - p. 257
Although the basic validity of this rule cannot be denied, many scholars
recognized that the rule is problematic 24 and impractical since it fails to take into
21 In the textual criticism of the NT, a distinction is usually made between two types of
internal evidence ("probabilities"), which has been formulated by B.M. Metzger & B.D.
Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th
ed.; Oxford:
University Piess, 2005) 302-3 as follows: (a) "Transcriptional
probabilities," such as the lectio difficilior, lectio brevior; (b) "Intrinsic probabilities," such
as "the style, vocabulary, and theology of the author throughout the book," "the
immediate context," and "harmony with the usage of the author elsewhere." This
distinction was already made by Westcott-Hort, NT, ll.19-30. In the textual criticism of
the Hebrew Bible, this distinction is not usually made.
22 This rule was first mentioned by Cappellus, Critica Sacra (1650) 303. In the research of
the NT, it has been used since J.A. Bengel ("proclivi Jectioni praestat ardua") in the
Prodromus (1725) to his Gnomon Novi Testamenti (Tiibingen: Schrammii, 1742).
23 Barthelemy*, xi ("factor 4"). For similar formulations, see Bentzen, Introduction, 1.97;
Klein, Textual Criticism, 75; Deist, Text, 244-5; idem, Witnesses, 203; Barth-Steck*, 41.
24 In spite of these complications, McCarter, Textual Criticism, 21 considers this rule "the
one great rule" for textual evaluation. In McCarter's formulation, this rule refers to the
"more distinctive" reading as opposed to the "commonplace reading."
276
consideration simple scribal errors. 25 By definition, a scribal error often creates a

lectio difficilior. If there were a consensus with regard to the recognition of scribal
errors, the rule would be more practical, but since it is often unclear whether or
not a given reading reflects a scribal error, the rule of the lectio difficilior cannot be
effectively applied.
Although scribal errors are found in all textual witnesses ..... pp. 9-11, 221-37,
opinions differ with regard to their recognition, as illustrated by two examples.
Jer 23:33
When this people, or a prophet, or a priest asks you:

"What is the burden (NiVO) of the LORD?," you shall
answer them, "What burden?" (NiVO i10 nN)-cf. ([ S.
The latter phrase is contextually difficult since this use of nN is unprecedented. It

reflects a lectio difficilior as compared with the contextually appropriate reading of
:
ECJTE To
lfi
NiVOi1 cnN
D) You are the burden!
<preferable>
Most scholars agree that the reading of m reflects incorrect word division+,
apparently as a result of NiVO i10 in v 33a, while lfi D reflect the original reading.
However, there is no unanimous view on this reading, as can be seen from
studies written in defense ofm.26
Jer 41:9
!TI+
NON l'-,Oi1 i1iVS] iiVN N,i1
1":::!
(The cistern into which Ishmael threw all the corpses

of the men he had killed) by the hand of Gedaliah,
that was the one that king Asa had constructed (on
account of king Ba'asah of Israel. That was the one
which Ishmael son of Nethaniah filled with corpses.)
<j>pEap
Toiho ECJTLV
oETTOLflCJEv 6
Aua
that was the I a large cistern that king Asa constructed

i,::J <preferable>
NON 1'-,oi1 i1iVS] iiVN N,i1
In this verse,
1":::!, "by the hand of Gedaliah," of m + reflects, in our view, a
contextually inexplicable reading (Gedaliah was one of the slain; the slain were
not killed by him), while the presumably original reading, N,i1
i,::J, is reflected
in. Here, also, a scholar has written in defense ofm.2 7
If, as is likely, the aforementioned two readings in m resulted from

scribal errors, the rule of the lectio difficilior does not apply to them.
Moreover, in many instances, this rule has been applied so subjectively that it can hardly be called a textual rule. For what appears to be
a linguistically or contextually difficult reading to one scholar may not
25 Thus Bentzen, Introduction, 1.97; Steuernagel, Einleitung, 97; Albrektson*.
26 N. Walker, "The Masoretic Pointing of Jeremiah's Pun," VT 7 (1957) 413. For a full
analysis, see W. McKane, "Ktzlr.:l in Jeremiah 23 33-40," in Prophecy, Essays Presented to
Georg Fahrer on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 6 September 1980 (ed. J.A. Emerton; BZAW 150;
Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1980) 35-54. It is not likely that the Vorlage
should
be reconstructed as the less common ;"Tr.:lnlt, as suggested by P. Wernberg-M0ller, "The
Pronoun ;"Tr.:lr1K and Jeremiah's Pun," VT 6 (1956) 315-16.
27 M.J. Dahood, "Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography!," Bib 44 (1963) 302-3.
277
necessarily be difficult to another. Furthermore, two readings may often

be equally difficult and two others may be equally easy.
The following instances show further difficulties regarding this rule:
1 Sam 1:23
,1:J1
4QSam 3
;"11;"1' (cp
ii[1;"1' cp
(=<!:D)
(=
In this example, discussed and translated on p. 256, there are no convincing

external or internal considerations either for or against the reading of m <r: D or
4QSam 3
readings are contextually possible.
1 Sam 1:24
!TI+
;"TO.!) 1;"T'?l)m
4QSam 3
'?l)m
Kal
she took him up with her

she took him up
flET' auToD and she went up with him
'?l)m
4QSam and are both derived from

which was understood as 'ot6 or 'itt6
respectively. Both readings, as well as !TI+, are contextually possible.
3
The recognition of equally difficult readings is admittedly subjective.

For example,
1 Sam 20:30
m
son of a perverse, rebellious woman (NRSV, NJFS)
ui.E
Kopaa[wv aUTOflOAOUVTwv
son of deserting maidens
? = 4QSamb
n1iO;"T
]::::!.
In our view, the reading of m is as difficult as the reading

4QSamb. The
reading of m (crooked in respect of rebelliousness) is linguistically difficult since
and
seem to express the same idea. 28 The reading(s) of
and
4QSamb is (are) difficult in other ways. implies that Jonathan is a son of more
than one maiden, which is impossible. 4QSamb seems to reflect the same reading
even though n1i0;"T is twice defective, which is not unusual for this early scroll .......
p. 211. Either of these two readings (or possibly a third one) 29 could reflect the
original text.
b. Lectio Brevior (Brevis) Potior

The logic behind the rule of the lectio brevior (brevis) potior ("the shorter
reading is to be preferred") is that ancient scribes were more prone to
add details than to omit them.30
28 Thus S.R. Driver, Samuel, 170.
29 Wellhausen, BUcher Samue/is, 119 and S.R. Driver, Samuel, 171 prefer n1"1ir.I;"T nillJ J:l in
the singular.
3 Klein, Textual Criticism, 75: "Unless there is clear evidence for homoeoteleuton or some
other form of haplography, a shorter text is probably better. The people who copied
manuscripts expanded the text in several ways: they made subjects and objects of
sentences explicit whereas they were often only implicit in the original text; they added
glosses or comments to explain difficult words or ideas; and when faced with alternate
readings in two or more manuscripts they were copying, they would include both of
them (conflation) in a serious attempt to preserve the original." Similarly Archer*, 52.
27R
In the following examples, it is more likely that an element was added as an

explanation than dropped as being superfluous.
1 Sam 1:24
m+
4QSam 11
1 Sam 2:21
m+
4QS.lm'1
1 Sam 2:22
!H+
4QSam"
i1W"tv C',m::l .... p. 2.36

with three bulls
w"wo ,p::l[ (-11')
with a three-year-old bull 1111d hrtad
M1i1' cv ':ti<,OW ,Vli1 ':t1,., = 11' and 3: I m 11'
yo1111g Samuel grew up with the 1.01m
[i1,i1]' 'lm" [':t1<, ]ow cw ':!;,., = s
- Sam[ uel] grew up there before the I.[ORr>l
11<0 lP' '"V, (= 11')
And Eli was very old.
]illW cvwn 1::1 11<0 lP' '"V,
And Eli was very old, 11int'ty yt'ars.
en",
-m in2Sam12:9(p.251).
This rule seems logical, yet its miso11 d'rtrt' has often been criticized. In fact, in
neither the NTJ 1 nor Hebrew Scri ptun can it be decided automatically that tht
shorttr rtading is original. Furtlwrmore, the rule does not cover Hcrib.ll omisHionH
(haplography 1 , homoiottleuton 1 , and homoioarcton 1 ). It would be htlpful if om
could identify tl'xts that tendl'd to add or omit dttails, but few such tl'xts Mt'
known.:1 2 Tlwrl'fore, this rule is impractical, as illustrattd by tlw following
txamplt:
I Chr 11:.31
JO'l::l 'J:I n.D:JlO ( s l' and 2 Sam 23:29)

of Ci beah of tilt
ol Btnjamin
t' K 11olll'oil Bt l't cqt tt ( = ([)
of the
of
B(nj<lmin
JO'l::l
nV::llO
The shorter rt'<lding of 11' ([ m<lY bl' original (d. I Sam 1.3:1.'1; 14:1o), in which c.1se
1 Alternatively, tht
the rtading of mD S would have bten cn.1ted by
reading of lfi ([ is SL'nmdary, crLated by hilplogmphy 1 .:1. Both explumttions
prLsupposL' scribal errors in a ILbrew manuscript. lloweVl'r, it iH .tlHo poHHiblt
that 'l::l W<lS omitted or added for conttxtu.tl rLasonH or that an inrwrtr.msl.ttiotMI corruption took pl.ll'e in 11' [.
The two aforementioned rules of the /ectio dij)lci/ior and ltctio brtr,ior
can be applied to only a small percentage of the readings that need to be
evaluated. Yet, they art the main rules mentioned in handbooks on
:1 1 Stt tlw discussion by
Royst, "Snih.tl 11.1bits in tht Tr.lllsmisMion ol Ntw
Ttxts," in O'FI,llwrty, ULJ--hl (including rl'ftnnns to tlw tMiitr studits by A.l'. L'l.trk
.md 1\.C. Colwl'll).
:12 Om notts ,, distinct tendtmy to .1dd dtt,lils in l(.)ls,J". D.N. Frttdnhln & D. Mi,lllo, "Is
tlw Shorttr Rt,Jding Bl'lter? ll,lplogr.lphy in tht First Hook of Chronidls," in l'.llll,
L:mllllllt-1. hH7-9H suggtst th.lt tfi-Chronidls w,ls prorll' to h.rplogr.aphy.
:o Tlw s.unt inttrch.lngtlwtwttn m ,md 11'1 Ol'l'UfS in I S.llll 2::11;9:1.
279
textual criticism and methodological discussions, and only a few

additional rules have been suggested:
c. Assimilation to Parallel Passages (Harmonization)
This criterion was formulated by Barthelemy*, xi as follows:

Some variant forms of text arose because ancient editors, scribes, or
translators, assimilated the text of one passage to that of a similar or
proximate passage, usually with the apparent purpose of attaining
greater consistency.
This criterion can be taken as a subcategory of the lectio difficilior, for the
assimilated reading is the "easier" one, and the other reading the more "difficult"
one. Thus, when in two different texts some manuscripts of text a agree with text
b, while other manuscripts of that text differ from b, the first mentioned group of
manuscripts of a is suspected of having been assimilated to b. -+ pp. 82-3, 258-9.
Assimilation to parallel passages is a valid rule for evaluation, but it pertains to a
small number of instances.
d. Interpretive Modification
In the formulation of Barthelemy*, xii:
In some instances a particular form of the text may appear to be
essentially interpretive. That is to say, certain ancient editors, scribes,
or translators may have thought that the underlying text should be
changed or amplified to conform to certain views, primarily
theological. Or they may have wished the text to state explicitly a
meaning which was not completely clear. Such variant forms of the
text which would have arisen in later phases of textual development
cannot be regarded as valid alternatives.
This rule, too, can be taken as a subcategory of the lectio difficilior+. Needless to
say, its application is so subjective that it becomes very impractical as a general
guideline, and is not often used even by Barthelemy*.
Summary. These rules, summarized by Volz, "Arbeitsplan," Barthelemy*, Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism," Schenker, "General
Introduction" (-+ p. 275) represent the traditional approach to textual
guidelines. The following faults are to be found with these guidelines.
o The logic underlying certain rules is questionable (lectio difficilior, lectio
brevior).
o The application of abstract rules does not make the evaluation of readings
objective.
o Textual rules can be applied to only a small fraction of the readings that
need to be evaluated.
o Textual rules are limited to internal evidence. No commonly accepted or
valid external rules exist in the textual criticism of Hebrew Scripture.
These criticisms pertain only to the application of textual rules. We do not
imply that such rules are incorrect or should be abandoned, but rather that they
280
Chapter 6: Evaluation of Readinxs
should be used sparingly and with full recognition of their subjective nature.34
and s,
For the evaluation of the scribal transmission of some witnesses, such
external rules can be helpful. However, the employment of such rules is very
limited for the internal comparison of Hebrew variants and for the comparison of
such variants with reconstructed variants from the andent translations.
Furthermore, even if there are objective aspects to the rules, the very selection of
a particular rule is subjective. For example, a given reading can be characterized
as a lectio difficilior, a transcription error, or as an exegetical element. Each of
these evaluative options leads to a different conclusion.
This assertion leads to some general reflections on the nature of textual
evaluation and the use of guidelines within that framework. The quintessence of
textual evaluation is the selection from the different transmitted readings of the
one that is the most appropriate to its context. Within this selection process, the
concept of the "context" is taken in a broad sense, as referring to the language,
style, and content of both the immediate context and of the literary unit in which
the reading is found. This procedure necessarify allows the scholar great liberty
but, at the same time, burdens him with the task of negotiating his way through
a labyrinth of data and considerations. Since the context is taken in a wide sense,
scholars have to refer to data and arguments bearing on different aspects of the
text, and hence to different disciplines: the language and vocabulary of literary
units and of Scripture as a whole, the exegesis of verses, chapters, and books, and
the general content and ideas of a given unit or book. In addition to these, the
scholar must be aware of the intricacies of textual transmission, and in particular,
of the types of errors made in the course of that process.
It has sometimes been said that one ought to regard as original the reading
that explains the origin of the other readings in the most natural way, or the
reading from which all others developed. 35 This formulation is acceptable, but it
can hardly be considered a practical guideline for the textual critic in the manner
in which it has been presented, for it is general to the point of being almost
superfluous. Among other things, it refers to the choice of original readings as
opposed to scribal errors, interpolations, deliberate alterations, and omissions. It
also refers to unusual yet original linguistic forms as opposed to corrected ones
and, conversely, to linguistically correct forms as opposed to corrupt ones.
The upshot of this analysis, then, is that to a large extent textual

evaluation cannot be bound by any fixed rules. It is an art in the full
sense of the word, a faculty that can be developed, guided by intuition
based on wide experience. It is the art of defining the problems and
finding arguments for and against the originality of readings. The
formulation and weighing of these arguments are very central to textual
criticism. Often scholars offer arguments that cannot be compared at all,
34 Epp, Perspectives, 647-8 realizes the problematic aspects of the mechanical use of these
criteria in the case of NT research, and he prefers to return to the term used by
Westcott-Hort, NT (1896) 20-22, viz., "probabilities." See also n. 21 above.
35 E.g. Davidson*, 385; Steuernagel, Einleitung, 73; Bentzen, Introduction, 1.97; Greenberg,
"Ancient Versions," 148.
281
such as the style of a given literary unit, its language, the morphology of
biblical Hebrew, and the logical or smooth flow of a given text. Within
this subjective evaluation, there is room for more than one view. The
view that presents the most convincing arguments is probably the best.
However, many arguments have differing impacts on scholars and often
no decision is possible, such as, for example, between synonymous
readings, between long and short texts, or between two equally good
readings in the context. - pp. 267-8. These difficulties do not render the
textual evaluation procedure questionable, for such is the nature of the
undertaking.
Therefore, it is the choice of the most contextually appropriate
reading3 6 that is the main task of the textual critic (for examples, see the
readings denoted in ch. 4 as "<preferable>"). This procedure is as
subjective as can be. Common sense, rather than textual theories, is the
main guide, 37 although abstract rules are sometimes also helpful. In
modern times, scholars are often reluctant to admit the subjective nature.
of textual evaluation, and, as a consequence, an attempt is often made,
consciously or unconsciously, to create an artificial level of objectivity by
the frequent application of abstract rules.
C. Preferable Readings
The practical result of the evaluation procedure described in this chapter

is that opinions are expressed on readings compared with m.. Most
scholars speak in terms of preferable, better, or original readings, while
some try to identify the reading from which the others presumably
36 Borbone, Osea, 26-32 considers this guidance a "rule." See his rules 6 ("Lectio, quae cum
sty/a scriptoris convenit, melior est") and 7 (" Ea lectio vera et genuine esse nequit, quae nullo
modo contextui apta aut consilio scriptoris prorsus contra ria est").
37 On the other hand, handbooks usuC\lly give an optimistic view of what can be achieved
with the aid of the mentioned guidelines. For example, the influential book of
Wurthwein, Text (English), 76 (1995) based on the S'h German edition notes: "There is no
precisely defined method for Old Testament textual criticism. Further, it is indeed
questionable whether one is possible, because the tradition 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 <my italics, E. T.>." The same optimistic sounds are heard in
Steck, Exegesis, 40-47 = Barth-Steck, Exegese, 37-44. This optimism is perpetuated in
Eissfeldt, Introduction, 721, who, when speaking about "the evaluation of the evidence
for textual criticism" simply refers to BH and Wt'i.rthwein rather than discussing the
issues himself. 0. Kaiser & W.G. Kt'i.mmel, Exegetical Method, A Student's Handbook, New
Revised Edition (New York: Seabury Press, 1981) 5-11 describe the procedure of textual
criticism and textual evaluation as if the student and scholar can easily practice this
discipline with the guidance of a handbook. Thus also Volz, "Arbeitsplan" (1936) 107.
282
derived. With the aid of this procedure, scholars create tools for exegesis
referring to presumably original readings as well as readings that
developed subsequently. Both types of readings have a bearing on the
exegeticalprocedure.-p.240,n.65
Many readings are presented in the other chapters of this book together with
our evaluation. Thus, when analyzing small harmonizing changes in ru ..... ch. 2,
Table 10 (p. 83), we present the comparative data together with our view that the
readings of lli are secondary when compared with m+, since harmonizations are
by definition secondary. This pertains also to linguistic corrections in ru (ch. 2,
Tables 11-13) and to contextual changes in 1Qisaa (ch. 2, Table 21 [pp. 103-4]).
Likewise, most textual phenomena described in ch. 4 presuppose an evaluation
of the evidence: e.g. random omissions, haplography+, homoioteleuton+,
homoioarcton+, dittography+, doublets+, exegetical changes, and additions to the
body of the text, especially glosses+ and interpolations+.
Many individual examples are likewise accompanied by our subjective
arguments relating to the content of the readings. At the same time, no
arguments are given for a few examples in ch. 4 that are denoted as
"<preferable>." For example, Exod 2:9 (p. 235); Isa 39:1 (p. 231).
In all the groups of variants described in ch. 7B as having been created during
one of the literary growth stages of the book, no textual preference is expressed
about the group as a whole nor about individual readings. This approach is not
acceptable to all scholars, since some express a preference for a group of readings
or individual details also in these instances.-+ ch. 7c
7
TEXTUAL AND LITERARY CRITICISM
D. Barthelemy, "L'enchevetrement de J'histoire textuelle et de J'histoire litteraire dans les
relations entre Ia Septante et le Texte Massoretique," in De Septuaginta, 21-40; Border Line;
Brooke, "Demise"; Cogan, "Assyriological Perspective"; N.C. Habel, Literary Criticism of the
Old Testament (CBS, Old Testament Series; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); A. van der Kooij,
"Zum Verhaltnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik: Dberlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele,"
VTSup 66 (Leiden: 1997) 185-202; id., "Textual Criticism" (2003); Kreuzer, "Text," 147-9; A.
Schenker, Earliest Text (2003); id., "Ursprung" (2007); Stipp, "Textkritik"; id., "TextkritikLiterarkritik-Textentwicklung: Oberlegungen zur exegetischen Aspektsystematik," ETL 66
(1990) 143-59; Z. Talshir, "The Contribution of Diverging Traditions Preserved in the
Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible," in Greenspoon-Munnich, VIII Congress, 21....:
41; van der Toorn, Scribal Culture; Tov, TCU (1997), 293-306; id., "Deuteronomists" (2008a);
id., "Early Scrolls" (2008b); Trebolle Barrera, Biblia, 412-27; Ulrich, "Double Literary
Editions of Biblical Narratives and Reflections on Determining the Form to be Translated,"
in id., DSS (1999) 34-50; id., "Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions
of Canon," ibid., 79-98.
A. Background
Textual criticism is involved with the study of textual witnesses and their
transmission. However, an examination of these texts also leads to other
disciplines, which principally include exegesis and literary criticism.l At
the outset, it would appear that literary criticism is far removed from the
topics usually treated by textual critics, but researchers pay an increasing
amount of attention to this discipline because the textual witnesses
preserve many relevant data.
Modern researchers pay attention to a category of evidence when
claiming that not all differences between textual witnesses could have
derived from the later copyists-scribes, but that some must have derived
from the earlier authors/ editors-scribes (for the distinction, see p. 240).
The later copyists-scribes created the small variants presented in ch. 4c,
while the earlier authors I editors-scribes created the sizable differences
described in section B below. The distinction between these two types of
evidence is based on the assumption that copyists were not involved in
1
Literary criticism is concerned with most of the essential questions pertaining to the
biblical books (origin, date, structure, authorship, authenticity, and literary layers),
including an analysis of presumed early stages in their development ...... Habel*
284
large-scale content changes. This subjective reasoning leads to another

hypothesis, namely that the details described in section B were created at
the final literary growth stage of the biblical books. In the past, these
changes have often been described as scribal changes, glosses, and
interpolations -+ ch. 4c, but they are now pushed back one stage in the
presumed history of the biblical books and manuscripts. They are
described here as literary (editorial) variants, with the understanding
that they attest to the existence of different stages in the literary development of the books. In some cases, these stages may be named editions
(-+ Bl-5), while in other cases the editorial intervention is more limited.
The parameters of the data presented in section B are as follows:
Most of the data in section B concern sizable differences between the textual
witnesses referring to phenomena that are scattered in a book, such as in 1-5,
7, 15, 16 and those that are concentrated in specific pericopes or chapters, such as
in 4a-b, 13, 14.
The evidence covers only Hebrew-Aramaic compositions, or ancient
translations based on a Hebrew-Aramaic source.
The data relating to literary (editorial) differences included in section B
derive from an internal comparison of !11+, IB*, and w., and some Qumran scrolls.
We exclude "rewritten Scripture" compositions from Qumran and elsewhere and
excerpted and abbreviated texts since they
new compositions and not
stages in the literary growth of Scripture texts. ..... pp. 189-90
The evidence pertains to literary stages of the biblical books that preceded !11
(e.g. most of the material in B1-4), stages that came after !11 (IB in B7a, l5a-b,
16 and w. in 21) as well as literary (editorial} differences for which the exact
relation to !11 cannot be defined (e.g. B5). In other words, section B is not linked
to the canonical development of m because the collection of sacred Scripture was
more encompassing than that included in m.3 ..... p. 21
Editors-scribes did not insert their content changes in earlier copies, but
created fresh scrolls for expressing their thoughts ...... Tov* 2008b. 4 This suggestion
is based on the realia of the Qumran scrolls: after the scroll was inscribed, it was
not technically possible to insert any substantial addition into the text or to delete
or rewrite segments larger than a few words or a line.
In the evaluation of the phenomena described in section B, constant attention
is paid to both literary and textual criteria. The examples continue to be relevant
2
3
4
For this reason, 4-11QTemple, Enoch, Jubilees, and most of the Psalms scrolls are
excluded from the analysis.
Our view on this important point has developed since TCHB 2, 315-17. At an earlier
stage, literary developments subsequent tom+ were excluded from the analysis.
See also van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 125: "Except for annotations scribbled in the
margins, usually referred to as 'glosses,' expansions normally required the scribe to
prepare a new copy of the text." ... "Expansion is therefore most likely to be explained
as an activity in the context of a new edition" (p. 126).
A: Background
285
to textual criticism, since they are found in textual witnesses, while their
evaluation is undertaken with the aid of literary tools. 5
The data in section B are more subjective than those in ch. 2. While the
headings are phrased in a neutral fashion, such as 1 "Two Literary Strata of
Jeremiah: 4QJerb,d
and m+", the interpretation (4QJerb,d
preceded m+)
represents our view. The reconstruction of the Vorlage of the data adduced from
adds another subjective element to the analysis.
The assumption of the existence of literary (editorial) differences

between textual witnesses such as exemplified in section B is
accompanied by an attempt to explain their existence. The correctness of
this explanation is not a necessary part of the description of the data
themselves. On pp. 167-8 it was suggested that the different editorial
formulations co-existed in ancient Israel because earlier formulations
were not eradicated. Similar suggestions have been made for Akkadian
compositions. 6
The recognition of literary (editorial) variants should be considered
"modern" because it has developed since the find of the Judean Desert
scrolls, which contain a number of such variants( B1, 2, 4, 9-13, 18, 23).
These finds aided scholars in identifying literary variants in
although
the content of that translation had been known for a long time? The
largest number of literary variants is included in
and an attempt is
made on pp. 139-40 to understand that situation.
The evidence below presents a collection of passages, sections and
books preserving glimpses from the last stage in the development of the
books. At the risk of presenting circular reasoning, we note that some of
the examples pertain to short/long versions in
as opposed to long
ones in !TI+ (Joshua, 1 Samuel16-18, Jeremiah, Ezekiel).
A. van der Kooij, "The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Before and After the
Qumran Discoveries," in The Bible as Book, 167-77 (175), went as far as claiming that
"textual criticism in the post-Qumran era can be regarded as a part of 'higher
criticism'." I would rather agree with Brooke*, 41 who, reacting to van der Kooij,
suggested that the two disciplines should now be regarded as one "holistic account."
Cogan* and Tigay* showed how different versions of the same Akkadian compositions,
reflecting different recensions, coexisted over a long period. Cogan referred to the annal
inscriptions of Ashurbanipal that appeared in at least eight editions over the course of
27 years in the 7'h century BCE (p. 2), while Tigay analyzed the many editions of the
Gilgamesh epos.
Long before the discovery of the Judean Desert scrolls, Wellhausen, Bucher Samuelis, xi
for the literary analysis.
recognized the importance of readings in
286
B. Evidence
1. Two Literary Strata of Jeremiah: 4QJerb,d *and m+

A. Aejmelaeus, "Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1-14 in
the Book of Jeremiah," VT 52 (2002) 459-82; P.-M. Bogaert, "De Baruch a Jeremie, Les deux
redactions conservees du livre de Jeremie," in Le livre de jeremie (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; BETL 54;
Leuven: Peeters, 1981) 168-73; id., "Relecture et deplacement de !'oracle contre les
Philistins. Pour une datation de Ia redaction longue (TM) du livre de Jeremie," in I..n vie de Ia
Parole ... Etudes ... offertes i'l Pierre Grelot (Paris: Deslcee, 1987) 139-50; id., "La liberation de
Jeremie et le meurtre de Godolias: le texte court (LXX) et Ia redaction longue (TM)," in
Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (ed. D. Fraenkel et al.; MSU 20; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990) 312-22; id., "Les trois formes de Jeremie 52 (TM, LXX et
VL)," in Tradition of the Text, 1-17; id., "Le livre de Jeremie en perspective: les deux
redactions antiques selon les travaux en cours," RB 101 (1994) 363-406; G. Fischer S.J ., "Die
Diskussion urn den Jeremiatext," in Karrer-Kraus, Septuaginta (2008) 612-29; Y. Goldman,
Prophetic et royaute au retour de l'exil: Les origines litteraires de Ia forme masoretiquc du livre de
jeremie (OBO 118; Freiburg/Gottingen: Universitiitsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1992); B. Gosse, "La malediction contre Babylone de Jeremie 51, 59-64 et les redactions du
livre de }eremie," ZAW 98 (1986) 383-99; J.G. Janzen, Studies in the Text offeremiah (HSM 6;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973); J. Joosten, "L'Excedent Massoretique du
livre de Jeremie et l'Hebreu post-classique," in Conseroatism and Innovation in the Hebrew
Lnnguage of the Hellenistic Period, Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew
of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (ed. J. Joosten & J.-S. Rey; STDJ 73; Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2008) 93-108; Lange, Handbuch, 300-324; J.R. Lundblom, "Haplography in the Hebrew
Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah," HS 46 (2005) 301-20; J. Lust, "The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah
and History Writing with Jer 33 as a Test Case," JNSL 20 (1994) 31-48; A. Rofe, "Not Exile
but Annihilation for Zedekiah's People: The Purport of Jeremiah 52 in the Septuagint," in
Greenspoon-Munnich, Vlll Congress (1992) 165-70; id., "Text-Criticism within the
Philological-Historical Discipline: The Problem of the Double Text of Jeremiah," Tarbiz 78
(2008) 5-25 (Heb.); Saley, "4QJerb"; Schenker, "Multiplicite" (2007); S. Soderlund, The Greek
Text of jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis OSOTSup 47; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985) 193-248; H.-J.
Stipp, Das Masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des feremiabuches, Textgeschichtlicher
Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkriifte (OBO 136; Freiburg/Gottingen: University Press/Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1994); id., "Linguistic Peculiarities in the Masoretic Edition of the Book of
Jeremiah: An Updated Index," JNSL 23 (1997) 181-202; id., "Zur aktuellen Diskussion urn
das Verhaltnis der Textformen des Jeremiabuches," in Karrer-Kraus, Septuaginta (2008)
630-53; L. Stulman, "Some Theological and Lexical Differences between the Old Greek and
the MT of the Jeremiah Prose Discourses," HS 25 (1984) 18-23; id., The Other Text of jeremiah,
A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of
jeremiah with English Translation (Lanham, MD /London: University Press of America, 1985);
E. Tov, "The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History," in
Tigay, Models (1985) 211-37; id., "The Characterization of the Additional Layer of the
Masoretic Text of Jeremiah," Erisr 26 (ed. B.A. Levine et al.; Heb. with Eng. summ.;
Jerusalem: IES & Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1999) 55-63; J.W.
Watts, "Text and Redaction in Jeremiah's Oracles against the Nations," CBQ 54 (1992) 43247; Weis, "Jeremiah" (2006); R.D. Wells, "Indications of Late Reinterpretation of the
Jeremianic Tradition from the LXX of Jer 211-23 8," ZAW96 (1984) 405-20.
Origen, ad Afric. 4, mentioned the distinctive nature of -Jeremiah, in

which he found many deviations from the Hebrew text known to him. In
the past two centuries, the deviations of *-Jeremiah from ffi+ in central
B: Evidence
287
matters has also merited a great deal of scholarly attention(-+ surveys by

Stulman* 1985; Bogaert* 1994; Weis* 2006). The question that has preoccupied scholars is whether the translator changed his Vorlage, or
whether he had a different Hebrew text of the book before him. With the
discovery of 4QJerb and 4QJerd, which, though fragmentary, reflect the
two main editorial characteristics of 113*, this question has been solved,
especially in studies by Janzen*, Tov* 1985-1999, and Bogaert* 1981-1994.
It seems very likely that 113 was translated from a Hebrew text that was
very close to these two Qumran texts. -+ pp. 108-9
The differences between !TI+ on the one hand and * 4QJerb,d on the
other are recognizable in two main areas, rendering these texts as two
different literary editions: 8
o Length. a3* is shorter than m+ by one-sixth ...... Table 1. It lacks words, phrases,
sentences, and entire sections that are found in m+. This characteristic is also
reflected in 4QJerb,d_ ..... Tables 1, 2
o Order of the Text. a3* deviates from the order of m+ in several sections and
chapters. For example, m+ 23:7-8 are found in a3* after 23:40 ..... B8, and the
internal arrangement of 10:5-12 in a3* and 4QJerb differs from that of !ll+ ...... Table
2 (pp. 292-4). The most striking difference in this regard pertains to the chapters
containing the prophecies against the nations, which in m+ are found at the end
of the book in chapters 46-51, before the historical"appendix," ch. 52, whereas in
a3* they occur in the middle, after 25:13. This verse serves as an introduction to
these prophecies: "And I will bring upon that land all that I have decreed against
it, all that is recorded in this book-that which Jeremiah prophesied against all the
nations." 9 ..... Watts*; Aejmelaeus*
This situation is complicated by the fact that Bar 1:1-3:8 was included in the Vorlage of
the OG+ translation of Jeremiah.-+ Tov, Jeremiah-Baruch
The text division of
probably represents the original intention of the context. The
clause "that which Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations" recurs in m-46:1,
forming the introduction to the prophecies to the nations in m+. Often, the location of
the prophecies against the nations in
is taken as original because of the close
connection between 25:13, the prophecy of the cup of wrath (25:15-26), and the ensuing
oracles against the nations. At the same time, it is hard to understand why ed. II would
have moved these oracles to the end of the book. However, according to Goldman*, 235
and Bogaert* 1994, 377, the juxtaposition in ch. 25 of the pronouncement of the guilt of
the nations and the drinking from the cup of wrath by Judah (v 18) in m+ shows a
definite design. Accordingly, A. Rofe, "The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah,"
ZAW 101 (1989) 390-98 and G. Fischer, "Jer 25 und die Fremdvolkerspriiche: Unterschiede zwischen hebraischem und griechischem Text," Bib 72 (1991) 474-99 adduced
strong arguments in favor of the secondary character of that sequence. One of the main
arguments used in these studies is the rather weak link between the punishment of
Judah in the first eleven verses of ch. 25, the punishment of Babylon in v 12, and the
ensuing oracles against all the nations. However, possibly the change in the placement
of the oracles in ed. II took place after the creation of that edition, in which case this
issue has no direct bearing on determining the sequence of the two editions .
..... Holladay, Jeremiah, 11.7
288
The assumed existence of a shorter Hebrew text underlying

is also
supported by the agreements between the short text
particularly in
proper nouns, with m+ of 2 Kings 24-25, in contrast to the longer text of
the parallel chapter Jeremiah 52 in ffi+. Moreover, the translation
technique reflected in Jeremiah is rather literal so that a priori, it is
improbable that the translator would have abridged his Hebrew source.
According to Tov* 1985-1999, * reflects a first, short, literary edition of
Jeremiah, "edition I," which differs from the expanded edition contained in m+,
"edition II." In ed. II, changes were inserted in the order of the verses and in
wording, but more frequently elements were added: sections now occurring
twice (e.g. 8:10b-12 for which cf. 6:13-15; 17:3-4, cf. 15:13-14; 30:10-11, cf. 46:27-28);
new verses and sections, the largest being 33:14-26 and 51:44b-49a; new details;
brief explanations, in particular, expansions of proper nouns; 10 expansions on the
basis of the context; expansions of formulae, etc. Expansions such as these are
presented in Table 1 within their context in ch. 27. Worthy of special
consideration are 27:19-22, in which the additions in m+ are inappropriate in the
context (they are anti-climactic and serve as a vaticinium ex eventu) and betray the
post-exilic date of ed. 11 (additional examples of post-exilic additions are found in
ed. II in 25:14; 27:7; 29:6). 11 According to Tov* 1999, ed. 11 stressed, among other
things, the guilt of the nation (e.g. 11:7-8, 29:16-20), the centrality of God (e.g.
10:6-8, 11), and it added actualizing remarks (post-exilic additions mentioned
above). Stipp* 1994-2008 and Joosten* provide examples of the linguistic
idiosyncrasies of ed. II, which often point to a later date than the main text of m.
The editorial changes were applied equally to all three compositional layers of
Jeremiah, traditionally named A, B, C, making it likely that this process took
place at a relatively late stage in the development of the book. 12
The exact process of development from ed. I to ed. II cannot be reconstructed
because the underlying text of ed. 11, albeit very similar, was not identical to ed.
1. 13 As a result, ed. 11 is occasionally a little shorter than ed. I. According to
another scenario, we should be open to the possibility that subtraction was also
in operation in llt+ in addition to expansion. Thus Rofe* 1995, 166 with regard to
passages in ch. 52 (= 2 Kings 25). Furthermore, undoubtedly a few of the short
10 The shorter version of the names in the historical chapters often follows a certain
pattern of including the full name at its first occurrence with shortened versions
thereafter, as in the case of "Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama," thus
introduced in ed. I in 41:1, but shortened to Ishmael in the next verses.- Tov* 1985,375
11 A reconstruction along the same lines as that presented in Table 1 is found in Stulman*
for all the prose sections in the book. The character of the added layer in ed. II is
discussed by Bogaert* 1981-1994, Wells*, Stulman*, Tov* 1985-1999, Gosse*, Goldman*,
and Lust*. Weis* 2006, 270 considers the view of the two editions of Jeremiah to be the
scholarly consensus.
12 For example, 17:1-2; 30:15, 51:44b-49a (all: A); 39:4-13 (B); and 11:7-8, 29:16-20 (C).
However, ed. II was not created as late as the end of the 3'd or beginning of the 2"d
century BCE, after the completion of the Greek translation - Schenker * 2007, but at an
earlier stage. For several centuries, the two editions co-existed in ancient Israel.
13 On the special position of chapters 27-29, seep. 188, n. 83.
B: Evidence
289
readings were created by textual mishaps, 14 such as the homoioteleuton + in Jer

27:12-14. 15
Table 1
Differences between !TI+ and the Reconstructed Vorlage of* in Jeremiah 27

This table presents Jeremiah 27 in parallel lines: the reconstructed Hebrew source
of II)* in the first line and min the second line in italics. Ch. 9, Table 3 (pp. 369-71)
presents eclectic+ translations of these data in modern commentaries.
':w ,;r,; i::Ji,i ,;,; ,;;m 7'0 m-rl.nN p
(?) :1iDl'
anm1 moo1 mio?o
'-,t(1
'N7 DliN
'-,t( c'-,iD1i' CnKip'-, C'K:::l:1

?Jij'i:;;: 'N D'i!ili"
'-,t(iiD' ;,'-,t(
'-,l)
'-,t( cnn'-,iD1
7'0 'N Dnn,i!i? 3

i':::l
DW::J,i
';,
2 iON' ',; nNo ,;oi
'-,t(1 C1iK
7'0 'N7 ::JN10 7'0
ni!iNi::J
:1:l2
7' ,ii!i!J "'N ',;
'-,t(1
'N7 J?O!J "J::J
';,
apm
7'0 'Nl
'-,K CnK
7'0
i:;;:
4 :1i1:1'
-ioN' D,i"JiN 'N DnN n1:;;:1 4 ,;;m
'Nii!i" ,;,N n7N::J:;;: ',; iON
7'0
YiK:1 nK ntvlJ
'-,K
ii!iN ,;o,;::J,i nNl DiN,i nN riN,i nN ni!i!J
'N liONn
iiD' iiDK'-, ;,nm1
'l'1ii:::l1
'::J::J
7'0
:1:l
.,,,m n:l:::l
,;n!Jl 6 J!J::J ii!i" ii!iN' ,;nnJl ,;?oJ,i "!Jlir::Jl ,,;;,;
'-,:J:J
'.!}
'-,K1
i"::J Jli":;;:
:1:l
7iN1:;;:
riN,i "J!:J
i':::l
nK
;::J ,;,N,i m:;;:iN,i
nN nn;
'!)
(?)
14 However, this explanation applies only to a very small percentage of the short readings,
and not to 64 percent as suggested by Lundblom, Jeremiah and id., "Haplography in the
Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah," HS 46 (2005) 301-20.
15 Soderlund*'s suggestion of a mediating position between the assumption of the
translator's abbreviation of his Vorlage and that of a shorter Hebrew text has been
refuted by Janzen, "A Critique of Sven Soderlund's The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised
Hypothesis," BIOSCS 22 (1989) 16-47. Rudolph, Jeremia, 158-61 (-+ ch. 9, Table 3) and A.
Rofe, "Text-Criticism within the Philological-Historical Discipline: The Problem of the
Double Text of Jeremiah," Tarbiz 78 (2008) 5-25 (Heb. with Eng. summ.) also prefer a
mediating position.
290
i1iiDi1 nn
t:m
nN? D"?),i '/;, mx 7i::J.J)7 7 ?i::J.J)'/ 1'/ nn: ,iiilm nn nx DJ? "i::J.J)
,8
nx1 '/:::;:::; 7'/Q 1::::NJi;)7::JJ nx mx ?i::J.J) x'/ iillN ,i;,'/QQ,i? "?J,i ,j",i? s cr'/i;
ei1"".!J
Nm,i "?),i
'/.!)
1n
i;'!JN i::Ji::J? ::J.J)i::J? ::Jin::J '/:::;:::; 7'/Q '/.J)::J 71N7:::: nN 1n N'/ iillN
i.!J 'i1
'/x1 D;,w:::;; '/x WQilln '/x DnN? 9 ?i"::J DnN "Qn i.J) ',i ex;
ei1
e::J"EliD::J
Q;,'),'( D'iQN Q,i iillN Q;)'!Jill;) 'N? D;)"JJ.J) '/N? Q;,nQ'/n 'N? D;)"QO;'
pnii1
e::;"
ei1 ipiD ::; 10
D;)nN pn,,i l.J)Q'/ Q;,'/ DW::JJ D,i ipill ;, 10 ':::;:::; 7'/Q nx ?i::J.J)n x'/ iQN'/
12
".!J 1nmi11
'/Nl 12 ,i::J ::Jill"l ,ii::J.J)l ',i DNJ ?nQiN
'/.!)
l"nm,il li::J.J)l '/:::;:::; 7'Q
"::;::;
Q;)'iNl:::: nN lN"::J,i iQN'/ ,i'/N,i C"i::Ji,i '/;,;, 'ni::Ji ,iil,i" 7'/Q ,i"j::Ji::::
13
::Jin::J 7Q.J)7 ,inN 7n7Qn ,iQ'/ 13 l"m 7Q.J)7 mx 7i::J.J)7 '/:::;:::; 7'/Q
'/.!):::;
14
14 '/:::;:::; 7'/Q nx i::J.J)" x'/ iillN 1.m '/x ',i i::Ji iilJN;) i::Ji::Jl ::J.J)i::J
'::J::J
7'C nN
li::J.J)n N' iQN'/ C;)''N C'iQN,i DW::JJ,i "i::Ji 'N 7.J)Qilln 'Nl
CC4L' .LCN( U?JCJL! .L!.( ffL .(CJ GdL. NUCJ C'NCJ L!, (L'ff4.U.::J (L!t?J.CU.CJ
N4L! .t?JL..N4 ff4 L'C4.c:J L!C'!UL...CJ C.U L!, (C.U 04L .L!(LL! (.l...(t7J4Cl ZZ
zz
O.l...(t?J4CJ CC4L! !NU C4 J.JI... L'(LL! (.I...U7J4C1 lZ: C. CL! NC/1... L!, !\CN(U
C'M.. Lal', CJ
4C.0CJ C'C(CLC'N!\1... 04L CC4 CC'4(U( NU .C(C'.L'
',dUCJ
d..!(.c:/.c:; 04L .L!(LL!
CJ',l t:t:', t:C',LUL
(ff4 L'.CJ (ff4 L!CJCC'!U (ff4
.UI... L!C4.CJ L!C'!UL...CJ Cff.l... L!JNU OZ: Nt?JI... 4N
C!', (L) .UL..
OZ
(C.U 04L .L'(LL! (C.I...(t7J4CJ CC4L! 6l C. CL! NC/1... L!, !\CN(U N4 L!ffCJL.CJ
61 c.
LCI... L!, NUCJ.G(ff( C'N CL', ,'\CN(U 4C4U CN( L!C4.CJ L!C'!UI....CJ CC.U L!,
l..t:L..
.GCC!L
t:.
W.( 40L! UL!.L' L!ff.l... L!JNU /.JI...CL'
8l (NCJ C'CN.CJ L!CJ (NCJ .t?J
.rn
al',UU.CJ 81
CJL!I...L! C. r;,di... L!CJL! C'CN.CJ 4CCJ n N4 Ut?JCJm N4.L!CJ ffCL( NU 04L CC4
c. rndL..
',CCJ Ll
LCI.... C'C.N.CCJ L'C'CN.CJ 4CC14.VCJI... L'C'L! C4 C.U L!, CJU?JC.CJ CJCC4L! ffUL!
l..t:L...
',CCJ
C', t:.U
CJLalt:.CJ
9l (N4 L!CL!C'.CJ (N4 C4 L!ffc:J L'JL! LCI...U. 4NCJI... CL! NC/1... L', N4 Ut?JCJff( N4
91
C',
l..t:L..U.
UalCJC!L
40:rf L!L.J.J. NUC::J (NCLUCJ NUCJ (L!C'CN.::J L!C'CN.CJ 4CCJ
',CJC!i
',C::J ( ',)CldL.. CldL.. ',C::J
C. r;,c:/1... L!CJ C'CN.CJ 4Cc:J S'l C. 4N t7J4J.JU.CJ C'N::J L!, (L!CJ C'CN.CJ cmc:;. 4mdi...
C. CldL..
',CCJ S1 C.
al',UU.CJ
t:ClCJ. ',CldL..
JJUJPWl :fi
l6Z
292
The features of* are also extant in 4QJerb,d in chapters 9-10 and 43:
Table 2
4Qferb,d in Their Relation to* and m+ in Jeremiah
a. 4QJerb: Jer 9:21-10:2116
i::;;pi1
i1iiZlii 'J::l '?l'

['? ]?i1n'
n'?::l" ii'?::lJ1
c;:,n '?'?iin'
'::l
i1'?il'::l
::l'? '?il'
lii
i11i1'
11'1i::l
;:,
1il)::;;'
'i
'?::ln
'::l
CiV1::l'?] 7
iiJi::J 11
iiiVl' 12
n1nn
ii'?l1'1
mi
'?::lii 15 C::l n1i
iiiZll'
ii::l ;:, 18
1'1::liV1' 11'1l'J::l
19
Ci1'? '1'11i::;;i11
1::JOJ ipiV
16
'?::Jii i::;;1' '::l ::lpl'' p'?n
'?;:,1 iiiV
?nJi
'?;:, il'::lJ 14
C'nip::l 1'1l'::l[ C'l'1'1l'1'1
i1'?m 'i::liV '?l'
c1pm
::li1T1
C1ii'?
1n::l::l
i11i1' m'?m
'J::l 1pm
rl' ";:)
P'::l'
=-Ji1::;; '?;:, iD'::lii
[l1]'?[1p 'JJii i11i1'
=-Ji1::;; ,,,,
C'pi::l
:liD'
'?;:, '::l
1'1'::;1 C::l''?l' ii1ii' i::li
iZlin "i"
[ 1i::ll'
;:,
'?l.125
1'1'::1 '?::l1 C''?il'

i1::J 2
n'?;:,n[ ?c'?;:,
11'1J1::l1'1::l1
n::;;::ln
'?l.11 i1i1i1' '?l.11
=,o;:, 9 1i::li'
1l'i'
'::l
t;"?J,i mn' '::l 1nnn
1i15:l" ::lfl[i::l1 =-JO::l::l 4

iD'iZlim
mii 24 ii1i1'
'J::l '?l.11
mpn ;:, 3
iOn iiiZll' ii1i1'
i1pi::;;1
'?l.11
i::liii
'?::li1
i11i1'
'?;:, '?l' 'nip::l1 ii1ii'

'?;:, '?l.11
;:, 23 1iiVl'::l i'iZll' '?'?iin'
l'i'1 '?::JiVi1 '?'?iimi1 '?'?i1n'
c[']::lib'i1
mi t:JN; ,j;)
i1::J 22
10
11
'?n iii
21
] 12
10:6-8, 10 are lacking in this scroll as in *. In spite of the fragmentary

condition of the scroll, Tov, DJD XV (1997) 173 and Saley* 2010 showed
that the order of the verses in 4QJerb cannot be reconstructed in any way
other than that of *, i.e., 3, 4, Sa, 9, Sb, 11. Vv 6-8, 10, lacking in 4QJerb
and *, have a uniform character: they extol the God of Israel, while the
16 The reconstruction in the bracketed text, including the verse order, follows IB* and
secondarily also m. Deviations from m in small details are indicated by italics. The lines
of this Qumran fragment are very long.
293
B: Evidence
remaining verses deride the idols of the heathen. The doxology+ in these
verses has been added in ed. n.l 7 -+ ch. 9, Table 3
Translation of Jer 10:1-11 m. The text in italics within angular parentheses

represents the verses lacking in* and the reconstructed text of 4QJerb:
the word that the LORD has spoken to you, 0 house of Israel.
says the LORD: Do not learn to go the way of the nations, and do
not be dismayed by portents in the sky; let the nations be dismayed
by them. 3 For the laws of the nations are delusions. For one cuts down
a tree in the forest, the work of a craftsman's hands, with an axe. 4 He
adorns it with silver and gold; he fastens it with nails and hammer, so
that it cannot totter. 5They are like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
they cannot speak. They have to be carried, because they cannot walk.
Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor is it in them to do
any good. {6There is none like You, 0 LORD. You are great, and Your name
is great in might. 7 Who would not revere You, 0 king of the nations? For
that is Your due. For among all the wise of the nations, and in all their
kingdoms, there is none like You. 8 But they are altogether dull and foolish;
the instruction of idols (?) is but wood!} 9Beaten silver is brought from
Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of a craftsman, and of the
goldsmith's hands; violet and purple is their clothing; they are all the
work of skilled men. 0 But the LORD is the true God, he is a living God,
and the everlasting king; at His wrath the earth trembles, and the nations
cannot endure His rage.} 11 <in Aramaic> Thus shall you say to them:
"The gods who did not make heaven and earth, shall perish from the
earth and from under these heavens."
1Hear
2Thus
b. 4QJerd: Jer 43:2-10

[ m1K nn
1v
[?] i[ l::l jr1K n ]66 [ j1i ]:J
?;,\ c[? }r!ii 'iiV [?;,1 }pn [ VO }ib
'::i 3 c [tv i1l?
o;::.:o 1K::ln K? iOK? 1l'ii?K]
K? [ 1] 4 [?::l}:J 1Jnit( m?Jii?1 1lr1K r1'0ii? C'ii!l::lii i'::l)
(vac
iii1ii' riK::l r1::ltv? ii1ii' ?1p::l C!lii}
ml::l nK1 'lt:lii nK1 c[]tvlii nK[1 ]c';:Jm nK 6 cib[ mil] -1[tvK c1m ?;,o 1::li!l iiVK iii1ii']
K'::llii 1ii'Oi' nK1 cpnK J::l 1ii'?il nK Jiil1::ll n ['lii iiVK tv::llii ?;, nK1j?on]
On::lnn iK::l'[1} ii1ii' ?1p::l 1VOiV K? '::l C'i::.:O ri[K 1K::l'1 7 1ii'il)::lj1i::l r1K1}
Cr1l0t:l1 m?il t:l'l::lK ji'::l np 9 iOK? Onl::lnn::l [ 1ii'Oi' ?K ii1ii' i:::li 'ii'1 8 }
r1'iKiV ?;, r1K c?[n};1"1[iV ?;,1}
Jll1[
n}pi 5
vacat t:l'i1ii' C'iVJK 'l'V? om::Jnn:::l nn::l::l iiVK [

j }? [r. i::.:Kii::l1::ll r1K nnp?1 n?tv 'llii ?KiiV' 'ii?K r11K::l::.:
8
ii1ii' iOK ii::l r1iOK1 10 ]
4QJerd reflects the same short text in Jer 43:2-10 as* (50:2-9), especially in proper
nouns, as illustrated in the following comparison. In the right-hand column, the
minuses of* vis-a-vis m+ are printed in italics enclosed in angular parentheses.
43:4, 5
4QJerd
Johanan
m+ Johanan lson of Kareahl
4QJerd
Nebuzaradan
!H+
Nebuzaradan lfhe chief of the guards!
17 J. Ben-Dov, "A Textual Problem and Its Form-Critical Solution: Jeremiah 10:1-16,"
Textus 20 (2000) 97-128 presents a literary analysis of the different layers in this chapter.
294
6
4QJerd }*
Gedaliah son
of Ahikam
2. Two Literary Strata of
m+ Gedaliah son of Ahikam, (son of

Shaphan}
and m+
A.G. Auld, "Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua," ZAW 90 (1978) 412-17; id.,
"The 'Levitical Cities': Texts and History," ZAW 91 (1979) 194-206; id., "The Cities in
Joshua 21: The Contribution of Textual Criticism," Textus 15 (1990) 141-52; M. Fishbane,
"Biblical Colophons, Textual Criticism and Legal Analogies," CBQ 42 (1980) 438-49; Gaster,
"Buch Josua" (1908); id., "The Samaritan Book of Joshua and the Septuagint," PSBA 31
(1909) 115-27, 149-53; S. Holmes, The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Joshua (Cambridge:
University Press, 1914); Mazor, "Origin" (1988); ead., "Septuagint" (1994); ead., "Nomistic"
(1995); van der Meer, Formation (2004); H.M. Orlinsky, "The Hebrew Vorlage of the
Septuagint of the Book of Joshua," VTSup 17 (1969) 187-95; H.N. Rosel, "Die
Dberlieferungen vom Josua- ins Richterbuch," VT 30 (1980) 342-50 (348-9); M. Rosel, "Die
Septuaginta-Version des Josuabuches," Brennpunkt (2001) 197-211 = SJOT 16 (2002) 5-23
(Eng.); A. Rofe, "The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint," Hen 4 (1982)
17-36; id., "Joshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated," in Tigay, Models (1985) 13147; E. Tov, "The Growth of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Evidence of the LXX
Translation," in id., Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999) 385-96; id., "Deuteronomists" (2008); id.,
"Literary Development" (2012); Ulrich, "Joshua" (1994).
The Greek translation of Joshua contains material of unusual interest

from a literary point of view. Some of its elements are shorter than ffi+
(-+ a), others are longer (-+ b), and yet others display a different
sequence(-+ c). Holmes* 1914, Auld* 1978-1990, Rofe* 1982-1985, Tov*
reflect two
1999, and Mazor* 1988-1995 suggested that ffi+ and
different literary strata, with
probably representing the more ancient
one.
also contains later material.l 8
Because of the paucity of external criteria on which to base a position
regarding the nature of
one must turn to the character of the translation itself. Although the translation of Joshua is not as literal as that of
Jeremiah-+ 1, the limited degree of freedom in this translation does not
allow us to draw the conclusion that the translator would have made
these changes. -+Mazor* 1994, 27-73. This position is supported by the
in 4QJosha
existence of a shorter text of Josh 8:14-18 that is similar
frg. 18. Note further the Hebraisms+ in pluses of dJ*, e.g. in 16:10, 19:48a,
24:31a, and Ulrich* 1994.
a. The Short Text
versus the Long Text ofm+
The text
lacks many elements found in ffi+, altogether amounting to
some 4 to 5 percent of the book. Most of these pertain to late elements of
18 4QJosha represents yet a third source ...... 13. On the other hand, claiming that the
major differences between these three sources derive from the inner dynamics of the
scroll and the character of}, van der Meer* 2004 cautions against this approach.
295
B: Evidence
!ll+: short elucidations, harmonizing and contextual additions, theo-
logical corrections, and some Dtr+ phrases. -+ Tov* 1999, 2011. While the
possibility that the translator shortened the text should not be ruled out,
the textual evidence taken in its entirety makes it likely that !ll+ presents
an expanded literary stratum in these small details. The minuses of 113*
should therefore be understood as pluses of m+. In the examples that
follow, the elements in angular parenthesis are lacking in 113*.
Josh 1:1
m+
llj*
{i11i1' i:::llJ}
'i1'1
After the death of Moses {the seroant of the LORD}
The same formula is lacking also in llj* 1:15 (below) and 22:4. Other Dtr phrases
are lacking in llj* in 1:11; 4:10; 8:31, 34; 24:17 ....... Tov* 2008 19
Josh 2:15
m+
llj*
,.p:::l i1n':::l :;,} J1'?ni1 ilJ:::l '?:::ln:::l t:li,,m

{n:::ltv1'
She let them down by a rope through the window
{for her dwelling was at the outer side of the city wall and
she lived in the actual wall}.
The long text in !lt+ is secondary since Rahab's house was intact in 6:22 after the
walls fell and therefore could not have been joined to the wall ....... Tov* 1999, 393
Some of the additions are formulated as afterthoughts.

Josh 1:15
m+
c:;,'?
1m
cntv,., I c::Jntv,.
cn:::ltv,
i:::ll) I
Ii11i1'
llj*
Then you may return to your inherited land

{and you shall take possession of it} which Moses
{the seroant of the LORD} gave unto you.
The first segment lacking in llj* disturbs the syntax of m.

Josh 4:10
nt+
llj*
,:::lii1 '?:;, cn ilJ Ji,'i111n:::l

'?:;,:;,} t:llJi1
,:::li'? lJtv1i1'
i11i1'
{lJtv1i1'
i1tvo
The priests who bore the Ark remained standing in

the middle of the Jordan until all the instructions that
the LORD had ordered Joshua to convey to the people
had been carried out {just as Moses had ordered Joshua}.
According to the short formulation of llj*, Joshua's actions closely followed the
command of God, while the plus of !lt+, possibly deriving from v 12, 11:15, or
Deut 3:28, stressed that the command was given by Moses.
The short 113* version of ch. 20 deserves special attention. In that

chapter, Joshua is commanded to designate cities of refuge in accordance
with previous commands given to Moses; see the regulations in the
19
Tov suggested that the minuses, pluses, and differences of l\J that agree with Dtr+
phraseology do not warrant the assumption of a separate second Dtr layer of Joshua.
All instances can be explained as scribal changes influenced by frequent Dtr
phraseology.
296
Priestly code (Num 35:9-34) and in Deut 19:1-13 (see below).* and the
Samaritan Book of Joshua+ reflect a shorter text.- Gaster* 1908-1909
Table 3
Minuses of* in Josh 20:1-6
The text that follows presents m, in which the minuses of 11j*, printed in italics, are
enclosed in angular parentheses, while the pluses of 11j* (for which, cf. Numbers
35) are printed in smaller typeface.
1Then the LORD said to Joshua: 2 "Speak to the Israelites, 'Designate the
cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses, 3 to which a
manslayer who kills a person by mistake {unintentionally} may flee;
they, the cities, shall serve you as a refuge, and the manslayer will not die from
the blood avenger. {4 He shall flee to one of those cities, present himself at
tile entrance to tile city gate, and plead his .case before the elders of that city;
then they shall admit him into the city, and give him a place, in which to live
among them. 5 And if the blood avenger pursues him, they shall not hand the
manslayer over to him; because he killed the other person without intent,
having had no enmity against him in the past. 6 He shall live in that city}
until he can stand trial before the congregation {until tile death of the
high priest who is in office at that time; thereafter the manslayer may go back
to his own town and his own home, to the town from which he fled.'"}
A comparison of the two texts shows that they reflect different literary
editions, with the long edition developing from the short one. ffi+ of Joshua 20 is
written in two different styles: grosso modo the section lacking in 11j* (the greater
part of vv 4-6 and the phrase nll1 '":::J.:::J., "unintentionally," in v 3) reflects the
content and style of Deuteronomy, whereas the rest of the chapter (m +, 11j*)
reflects the style and content of Numbers 35 (the Priestly code). For example,
compare imiD:::J., "by mistake," in v 3 found in Num 35:11 with the adjacent phrase
nll1 '":::J.:::J., "unintentionally," also found in Deut 19:4 (this phrase appears only in
Deuteronomy and Josh 20:3). For a detailed discussion of the vocabulary of this
passage, see Rofe* 1985 and Fishbane*.
It is suggested that the short text reflected in 11j* and formulated according to
Numbers 35 reflects an early literary layer of this chapter. This assumption is
based on the internal tension between this layer and that of the additions in the
long text of !11+. The layer of additions of !11+ in Joshua contains words and
sections from Deuteronomy 19 that were meant to adapt the earlier layer to
Deuteronomy, an assumption which is not surprising in Joshua, whose present
shape displays a Dtr+ revision elsewhere in the book. The additions in ch. 20
caused an internal contradiction: in v 4 (the plus of !11 + ), the manslayer is received
into the city of refuge as one who is recognized as having killed by mistake and
who thus becomes a legally acceptable refugee. His acceptance into the city of
refuge is based upon the considered opinion of the elders of the city, who heard
his version of the incident (vv 4-5). On the other hand, according to the continued
text in v 6 (!11+, 11j*), the manslayer has yet to be brought to trial ("until he can
stand trial before the congregation"). In the short text of 11j*, in which vv 4-5 are
lacking, this tension does not exist.
B: Evidence
297
b. Some Long Elements in d>* Differing from !H+, Usually Earlier than m
While d>*-Joshua often presents a shorter text than !H+, it also contains
some significant pluses to !H+ that bear all the marks of a Hebrew text,
visible in their Hebraistic+ diction. Some long pluses contain phrases and
parts of verses occurring elsewhere in Joshua-Judges or 1 Kings. Some of
them reflect Hebrew texts earlier than m, while others reflect midrashic+
additions to the m edition. It is often difficult to distinguish between
these two options; for example, it is unclear whether the tradition
regarding the flint knives "taken" by Joshua and buried by him in his
grave (d> 21:42d; 24:31a) represents an original tradition deleted by m+ or
a midrashic+ addition to the story. See dJ 19:47-48, 21:42a-d, 24:31a
(-+ Tov* 2011) as well as:
6:26a. The implementation of Joshua's curse on the rebuilder of Jericho in (\j*
6:26a is more or less identical to 1 Kgs 16:34 !lt+, (\j* (for the latter text, see 24).
The added text in the Greek Joshua did not derive from the parallel text in (\j-1
Kings, 20 but from a somewhat different Hebrew text. This plus runs parallel to
the prophetic vision of the identity of that rebuilder in 4QapocrJoshb (4Q379) 22 ii
7-15 and 4QTest (4Q175) 21-30.
The history of the tradition of the rebuilding of Jericho may be reconstructed
as follows. Originally, the implementation of the curse was not included in the
text, as is visible in (\jLuc (borc2e2 ), which lacks 1 Kgs 16:34. -+ p. 324. At a second
stage (!lt+ and the versions except for (\jLuc), a Dtr+ addition in 1 Kgs 16:34, not
connected with the surrounding verses, recorded the fulfillment of the prophecy.
A third, midrashic+, stage in the development is reflected in the Hebrew source
of (\j-Josh 6:26.
16:10a. In the description of the territory of Joseph, upon mentioning Gezer,
(\j* adds the story of Pharaoh's gift of that city to his daughter. This story was
copied from 1 Kings where it fits more naturally, either in 9:16 (!lt+) or after 5:14
((\j*). The two Greek versions differ in several details, excluding the possibility
that (\j-1 Kings 5:14 was transferred to (\j-Joshua. The plus in (\j-Joshua expanded
the mentioning of Gezer by way of mid rash+.
24:33a-b (transition between
and Judges). The long plus in d>* after
Josh 24:33 probably reflects an earlier stage in the development of the Hebrew
book.
(a) fV fKflVJ.l Tfj
oi UlOt lapaT]A
TOU 8EOU
mpLE<j>Epoaav t:'v EauTo'is-, Kat <l>LVEES" LEpciTEUGEV avTt EA.Ea(ap TOU
TTaTp<'>s- atJTOU, EWS" cLTTE8aVEV Kat KaTwpU)'T] EV
Tfj EaUTOU. (b) oi
OE viol. lapaT]A
EKaaTOS" ELS" TOV TOTTov aiJTwv Kal EisEavTwv rroA.Lv. Kal.
oi ui.ol. lapaT]A
AaTapTTJV Kat AaTapw8
Kat TOU<;' 8EOU5 TWV E8vwv TWV
aUTWV. Kal rrapEOWKEV auTOU<;'
KUplOS" ELS" XELpas- E)'AWIJ- T0
Kat EKUplEUGEV auTwV ETT]
OEKa OKTw.
20 The two Greek texts differ.
298
On that day, the children of Israel took the Ark of God and carried it
about among them; and Phinees exercised the priest's office, instead
of Eleazar his father till he died, and he was buried in his own place
Gibeah, and the children of Israel departed every one to his place, and
to his own city. And the children of Israel worshiped Astarte and
Astaroth, and the gods of the nations round about them; and the LORD
delivered them into the hands of Eglon king of Moab and he ruled
over them eighteen years.
The Hebraic diction of this passage allows for a relatively reliable reconstruction
of the Greek text into Hebrew. The asterisks indicate problematic details.
om:l *Ji1::>'1 . *c::>m::l
I 1::!0'1
'J::l *1:;,'-,1 .1'-,

t"l1it"1Wl1i1
*mw i1itvl1
t:J::l
1i::lp'1 /i::li?'1
mntvl1i1
'J::l 1np'-,
t:J1'::l
ill
nnn
'J::l 1i::ll1'1 Ji'l1"1

i'::l 'i1 t:JJt"l'1 .t:li1't"l1::l'::lO
The text of !TI+ in Joshua 24 contains no parallel to this passage, but its
components can be found in other places: for
cf. Josh 24:33; Judg 2:9 and for
33b, cf. Judg 2:6, 11-14; 3:12, 14. The text seems to be known to CD V 1-5.
Rofe* 1982 demonstrated that this passage existed once in a Hebrew form in
one of the early stages of a combined book of Joshua-Judges. The most
remarkable aspect of the added verse Josh 24:33 is that the last phrase mentions
the beginning of the story of Ehud in Judg 3:12-30. The addition of 113* preserves
an ancient tradition of a combined Joshua-Judges book. The following sequence
(based on m+) may be reconstructed: Joshua 24, the plus of 113*, the story of Ehud
Qudg 3:12-30), and the remainder of Judges. 21 The section that is now a plus in
113* after Josh 24:33 was presumably omitted in !TI+, possibly for ideological
reasons (Rofe*). This view was not accepted by H.N. Rosel*, who considers the
addition of 113* to be secondary.
c. The Different Sequence in Chapters 8-9 in \B* and m+

In chapters 8-9, IB* differs significantly from the sequence of !TI+. The
order of the events in IB* is as follows:
1. The conquest of Ai (8:1-29).
2. A summarizing notice (9:1-2) " 1When all the kings west of the Jordan-in
the hill country, in the Shephelah and along the entire coast of the Mediterranean Sea up to the vicinity of Lebanon, the Hittites, Amorites,
Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites learned of this, 2they gathered
with one accord to fight against Joshua and Israel."
3. The building of the altar (8:30-35).
21 As a supporting argument for this assumption, Rofe asserted that the entire section
comprising Judg 1:1-3:11 in all textual witnesses is secondary. It contains (a) a collection
of stories on the conquest of the land and on the failure to dispossess its inhabitants (ch.
1) that runs parallel to Joshua, (b) a late editorial introduction to the book of Judges
(2:1-3:6), and (c) the story of the judge Othniel (3:7-11) whose nature as a "judge" is not
clearly delineated. Presumably, Judg 1:1-3:11 was added in Judges after the original
book was separated into Joshua and Judges.
299
B: Evidence
4. The cunning of the Gibeonites (9:3-27).

The divergences between the two traditions may also be presented as a
literary (editorial) difference in the placement of the account of the building of
the altar (8:30-35). This section is secondary in its context for it does not have any
clear connection with the surrounding verses. Tl't, "at that time," in 8:30 forms
only an external connection, and the entire section is based on Deuteronomy 27
as well as the terminology of that book in general. Therefore, this section may
have been added at a later period in different places in the Dtr+ editing of Joshua:
in m+ before 9:1-2 and in * after these verses. Although there is no basic
difference between these two traditions, it seems that the position of 9:1-2 in l!j* is
the more plausible, for here it forms a conclusion to the preceding action (the
conquest of Ai, 8:1-29)- 4QJosha in 13. For other sequence differences, see 8.
d. Theological and Ideological Changes
Mazor* 1994, 381-7 and 1995 described several theological changes in*
probably deriving from its Hebrew Vorlage, especially presumed
nomistic+ changes (Josh 6:1-20; 22:23, 29; 24:1, 25).-+ M. Rosel* 2001, 20811.
3. Two Literary Strata of Ezekiel:* and !ll+
L.C. Allen, "Some Types of Textual Adaptation in Ezekiel," ETL 71 (1995) 5-29; P.-M.
Bogaert, "Les deux redactions conservees (LXX et TM) d'Ezechiel 7," in Lust, Ezekiel, 21-47;
K.S. Freedy, "The Glosses in Ezekiel i-xxiv," VT 20 (1970) 129-52; J. Lust, "Ezekiel 36-40 in
the Oldest Greek Manuscript," CBQ 43 (1981) 517-33; id., "The Use of Textual Witnesses for
the Establishment of the Text: The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel, An Example: Ez 7,"
in Lust, Ezekiel, 7-20; id., "Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel," in
Schenker, Earliest Text (2003) 83-92; id., "The Ezekiel Text," in S6fer Mahir (2006) 153-67;
T.P. Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text
Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel, Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2010; H.-J.
Stipp, "Der pramasoretische Idiolekt des Buches Ezekiel und seine Beziehungen zum
Jeremiabuch," in From Qumran to Aleppo, 141-55; E. Tov, "Recensional Differences between
the MT and LXX of Ezekiel," in id., Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999) 397-410; Trebolle Barrera,
Biblia, 420-21.
*-Ezekiel reflects a slightly shorter text (by 4-5 percent) than !ll+ and it
contains a thin layer of literary (editorial) differences from !ll+ inch. 7:39.-+ Bogaert*; Lust* 1981-2006
*-Ezekiel is relatively literal, leading to the assumption that its sequence
differences and minuses vis-a-vis m+ reflect a shorter Hebrew parent text. This
shorter text was slightly expanded in nt+ by various types of elements: exegesis,
harmonization, emphasis, parallel words, and new material- Tov* and Mackie*,
to be exemplified below (the words in angular brackets are lacking in 1!j*).22 Most
of the plus elements are explicative-exegetical, for example,
22 Stipp* pointed out that several words and phrases in the
added layer only, e.g.
C'Jp.
m pluses
characterize the
300
Ezek 1:22
!ll+
\\J*
Ezek 3:18
m
\\J*
Ezek 8:3
nipi1
rv;:,
with an {awe-inspiring} gleam as of ice

,;:,,,o
i"mi1' (= cr:: D)
to warn the wicked man of his (wicked) course
m+
to the entrance of the (inner) gate23

Scholars often present the plus elements of m+ in Ezekiel as glosses (interpolations would have been a better term). 24 However, this view is unlikely
because of the large number of these elements and because of the occurrence of
parallel elements and synonymous words among the pluses of m+ (as in the first
three examples) and new material in them (the last two examples). E.g.
\\J*
Ezek 5:14
m+
Tn1::l"::lO
\\J*
I will turn you into a ruin {and a reproach} among the

nations that are around you.
r:nJ::l
i1::lin'
For a similar context, see Jer 49:13 ... {:lin'}

parenthesis is lacking in \\J*.
Ezek 5:15
Ezek 6:6
;::,, where the word in
m+
i10n mn;:,n::11 {i1on::l1
\\J*
when I execute judgments against

fury} and by chastisements of fury. 5
m+
l::l
{in anger and in
c;:,mn:JTO ...
\\J*
... your altars, and shall be ruined
Ezek 16:13
!H+
{i1;:,,,o,
Ezek 20:28
m+
Ci1'n::lT
{and shall be desolate}
New material:
You were very very beautifullfit to be a queen}.

1n::lT"1 n::lll
rv ,;::,, i10i i1ll::lJ ,;::,

{CJ::lip ov;:,
1m1 I
They saw every high hill and every leafy tree, and
there they made their sacrifices. {There they placed their
vexatious offerings.}
The plus elements in !H+ should be taken in their totality as representative of a
literary layer, added to an earlier edition as represented by \\J*.
Furthermore, two small sections (12:26-28 and 32:25-26) of \13* and one
large section (36:23c-38) are lacking in Pap. 967 (P.Chester Beatty) dating
to the 2nd or early 3rd century CE, in the latter case attested to also in
23 The addition in m+ is inappropriate in the context. "It is premature in terms of the
itinerary of the divine tour as represented by this stage in the narrative" (Freedy*, 138).
24 SeeP. Rost, "Miszellen, I. Ein Schreibgebrauch bei den Sopherim und seine Bedeutung
fur die alttestamentliche Textkritik," OLZ 6 (1903) 403-7, 443--6; 7 (1904) 390-3, 479-83;
]. Herrmann, "Stichwortglossen im Suches Ezechiel," OLZ 11 (1908) 280-2; id., "Stichwortglossen im Alten Testament," OLZ 14 (1911) 200-204; G. Fohrer, "Die Glossen im
Buche Ezechiel," ZAW63 (1951) 33-53 = BZAW99 (1967) 204-21; Freedy*; M. Dijkstra,
"The Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered: Aspects of Textual Transmission in Ezekiel 10,"
in Lust, Ezekiel, 55-77; Allen* ...... pp. 259--61
25 Cf. Deut 29:27 where
occur in a similar context.
B: Evidence
301
VL Wire. According to Lust,26 probably all three sections were lacking in

both the OG+ translation and its Hebrew source.*
4. Different Literary Strata in 1 Samuel: m+,l.1J*, and 4QSama
m+ and l.1J differ in large and small details in Samuel, among them in two
sets of data in which they apparently reflect different literary strata. -
10 and pp. 254-6
a. Two Literary Strata in 1 Samuel16-18 in 1.1J* and lTI+
A.G. Auld, "The Story of David and Goliath: A Test Case for Synchrony plus Diachrony,"
David und Saul im Widerstreit: Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit. Beitriige zur Auslegung
des ersten Samue/buches (ed. W. Dietrich; OBO 206; Fribourg/ Gottingen, Academic Press/
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) 118-28; D. Barthelemy, D.W. Gooding, J. Lust, E. Tov, The
Story of David and Goliath, Textual and Literary Criticism (OBO 73; Fribourg/ Gottingen:
University Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); Hendel, "Samuel"; Lange, Handbuch,
227-47; J. Lust, "The Story of David and Goliath in Hebrew and Greek," ETL 59 (1983) 5-25;
Pisano, Additions or Omissions, 78-86; A. Rofe, "The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore,
Theology, Eschatology," in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. J. Neusner; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1987) 117-51; E. Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the
Septuagint Version," in id., Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999) 333-60; J. Trebolle Barrera, "The Story
of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17-18): Textual Variants and Literary Composition," BIOSCS
23 (1990) 16-30; id., Biblia, 416-17.
In 1 Samuel 16-18, containing mainly the story of David and Goliath, two
literary strata are visible in 1.1J* and !TI+ reflecting different tendencies and
theologies.
The story of David and Goliath in \IJ* is significantly shorter than that in !11+: it
lacks 39 of the 88 verses (44 percent of the entire story), including long sections:
17:12-31, 41, 48b, 50, 55-58; 18:1-6a, 10-11, 12b, 17-19, 21b, 29b-30. While some
scholars claim that the translator omitted these sections with the intention of
smoothing over problems in the Hebrew text, others are of the opinion that he
found before him a short version of the story representing a literary edition
different from !11+.
Since there is no external evidence (such as ancient Hebrew texts) to support
the assumed existence of a short Hebrew text, the nature of \IJ* can be explained
solely on the basis of an analysis of its translation character. According to Tov*
1999, this translation unit reflects a literal translation method, and, therefore, one
26 Lust* 1981, 2003; P.-M. Bogaert, "Le temoignage de Ia Vetus Latina dans )'etude de Ia
tradition des Septante: Ezechiel et Daniel dans Ie papyrus 967," Bib 59 (1978) 384-95.
Lust assumed that the minuses in 12:26-28 and 32:25-26 could have been created by way
of parablepsis, but he considered the assumption of a shorter text more likely. In all three
cases, the main manuscripts of IB contains a long text, like Ill+; the long text was created
secondarily according to Lust, who found signs of lateness in the main text of 12:26-28
and 36:23-38. Lust also recognized common eschatological and apocalyptic themes in
the segments added in Ill+, lB.
302
cannot attribute to the translator the intention of abridging his source to such a
great extent, as was claimed by Pisano* 1984.
According to Barthelemy* 1986, Gooding* 1986, and Rofe* 1987, this short
Hebrew text, translated faithfully by the translator, was created at an earlier stage
as an abridgement of a longer Hebrew text resembling m+.
On the other hand, according to Tov* 1986-1999 and Lust* 1986, II)* reflects a
short version of the story of the encounter between David and Goliath. This short
version, found both in II)* and m+ and called here ed. I, is more natural than m+
since it does not contain the double accounts of the latter. Ed. II (the additional
verses in ffi+) has been added to the story of ed. I (Auld* suggests a variation of
this view). Both versions of the story of David and Goliath contain several
parallel elements that are not linked by what we would name cross-references:
David is introduced twice to Saul (16:17-23; 17:55-58), he is twice appointed as an
officer in Saul's army (18:5, 13), and on two occasions Saul offers the hand of one
of his daughters to David in marriage (Merab, 18:17-19; Michal, 18:20-27). The
two versions are not completely parallel, for ed. I is fuller than ed. 11.
Table 4
Two Versions of the Story of David and Goliath
16:17-23
17:1-11
edition I (II)* and m+)

David is introduced to Saul as
a skilful harper and is made
one of his arms-bearers.
Philistine preparations for a
fight. Goliath suggests a duel
with one of the Israelites.
17:40-54
David volunteers to fight

Goliath.
The duel. After Goliath's miraculous fall, the Philistines
flee.
Short account of the duel (vv

41, 48b, 50).
Saul asks who David is. David
is introduced to Saul by
Abner.
David and Jonathan make a
covenant.
David is appointed as an
officer in Saul's army.
Saul attempts in vain to kill
David.
17:55-58
18:1-4
18:5-6a
18:10-11
18:12a,
13-16
11 (m + only)
David is sent by his father to

take food to his brothers at the
front, hears Goliath and
desires to meet him in a duel.
17:12-31
17:32-39
edition
David's successes.
303
B: Evidence
Saul offers David his eldest
daughter, Merab.
18:17-19
18:20-21a,
22-29a
18:2%-30
Saul offers David his daughter

Michal. Saul fears David.
Saul's enmity for David.
David's successes.
The editor of m+, who joined ed. II to ed. I apparently with the intention of
preserving a parallel ancient story, failed to take into consideration the
disharmony that was caused by the combination of the two stories. The most
significant of these double traditions is that found in 17:55-58. In these verses,
Saul enquires about the identity of David, although the latter has already been
introduced to him at the end of the previous chapter (-+16:21b "He <Saul> took a
strong liking to him and he became his armor-bearer.") The two layers reflect
theological differences ...... p. 243
b. Two or Three Literary Strata in 1 Samuel2 in m+, a3*, and 4QSama

A. Aejmelaeus, "Hannah's Psalm in 4QSama," in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel (2010)
23-37; Hutzli, Hanna (2007); Thenius (Lohr), BUcher Samuels, IX-LXVIII, LXXV; Tov,
"Hannah" (1999); E. Ulrich, "A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSama,"
in Flores Florentino, 147-61; Walters, "Hannah and Anna."
In the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1-10), two parallel editions in m+ and a3*,
and probably a third one in 4QSama, display major differences, pluses,
and minuses in vv 1, 2, 8c, 9, 10. -+ Thenius*, Tov* 1999, Aejmelaeus*
2010,37
In its reconstructed original form, the Song of Hannah reflects a thanksgiving
hymn written by an individual, referring to various situations in which he was
saved from calamity. This psalm stresses the special power that enables God to
bring about changes, especially changes to good or bad situations. The major
stress in this psalm is on the change for the better, and the psalmist thanks God
for this improvement in his fate.
The main idea of the reconstructed original form of the song has been
reinterpreted in two directions in the preserved texts, which therefore constitute
different editions of the song and its narrative framework. 27 These changes are
evidenced in the three main textual sources that have been preserved, either in
individual witnesses, or in groups of two, without any consistency. 28 Each of
these witnesses makes the Song of Hannah more relevant to its context or to
certain trends in biblical theology. For example, 2:8c, lacking in*, was added in
ffi+ and 4QSama in order to stress the universal power of God, while the context
focuses on God's power in determining the fate of the individual. This universal
27 Ulrich* 2007, 160 believes that the differences between the texts "do not represent
intentionally produced variant literary editions."
28 Sometimes the change is evidenced in m+, and sometimes in tiJ*, and either one is
sometimes joined by 4QSama.
304
power is also referred to in v 10, where it suits the context. Further, the
reconstructed earlier text of 2:8-9 consisted of vv 8ab and 9b only. However, this
short text was interpreted in different ways in ffi+ and the Vorlage of
V 2:9a,
common to ffi+ and 4QSama but lacking in
represents a theological reinterpretation of the main theme of the Song of Hannah. According to that verse,
the person who is loyal to God will witness a change for the better, and the
wicked (that is, those who are not loyal to God) will witness a change for the
4QSama present a completely different explanation of the original text
than ffi+, "He gives the vower his vow and blesses the years of the just (v 9a')."30
Furthermore, ffi+ replaces Hannah's actions in the story of the third visit to
Shiloh with those of Elkanah. -+ pp. 254-6
5. Two Literary Editions of Proverbs: \B* and m+

R.J. Clifford, "Observations on the Text and Versions of Proverbs," in Wisdom, You Are My
Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, 0. Carm.: on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday
(ed. M.L. Barre, S.S.; CBQMS 29 [1997)) 47--61; J. Cook, "The Greek of Proverbs: Evidence of
a Recensionally Deviating Hebrew Text?" in Paul, Emanuel (2003) 605-18; id., "The TextCritical Value of the Septuagint of Proverbs," in Wisdom of the Ancients (2005) 407-19; id.,
"Relationship" (2009); T. Forti & Z. Talshir, "Proverbs 7 in MT and LXX: Form and
Content," Textus 22 (2006) 129--67; M.V. Fox, "LXX-Proverbs as a Text-critical Resource,"
Textus 22 (2005) 95-128; F.H. Polak, "The Place of the Dikniaos: Creative Translation and
Verse Order in the Septuagint of Proverbs," Textus 24 (2009) 133-52; E. Tov, "Recensional
Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs," in id., GreekHebrew Bible (1999) 419-31.
Beyond the freedom of \B-Proverbs, 31 that version reflects literary

(editorial) features in differences in order, minuses, and pluses differing
from lll+. Tov* 1999 suggested that the two groups of texts represent
different literary editions, but it is difficult to determine the precise
relationship between them. The sequence of the sayings in many
chapters is loose, and as each saying or group of sayings is more or less
independent, two parallel editorial traditions could have been in
circulation.
29 4QSama represents a hybrid version of the two interpretations.
30 After mentioning the various categories of change from evil to good and vice versa, and
after declaring God's power in bringing about these changes, it is somewhat anticlimactic to mention God's granting of the vow to the person who vows in v 9a'. God's
power is reflected in so many categories that the granting of the vow seems to be a mere
detail presented as an afterthought. Since v 9a' is not found in m+, it may be suspected
as secondary, since it reflects Hannah's special situation. This verse reflects an attempt
to accommodate the song to Hannah's situation.-+ Tov* 1999
31 See A.J. Baumgartner, Etude critique sur /'etat du texte du livre des Proverbes d'apres les
principales traductions anciennes (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1890); G. Mezzacasa, II libro dei
Proverbi di Salomone: Studio critico sul/e aggiunte greco-alessandrine (Rome: Pontificial
Biblical Institute, 1913); G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint, lll: Proverbs (LUA NF
52,3; Lund: Gleerup, 1956); J. Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs, jewish and/or Hellenistic
Colouring of LXX Proverbs (VTSup 69; Lei den: Brill, 1997).
B: Evidence
305
The main difference in order pertains to chapters 24-31, which appear in lfi*
according to the following sequence, denoted according to the numbering of m.
22:17-24:22
30:1-14
24:23-34
30:15-33
31:1-9
25-29
31:10-31
("The words of the wise" [22:17])

("The words of Agur" -part one)
("These also are by the Sages")
("The words of Agur"-part two)
("The words of Lemuel"-part one)
("These too are proverbs of Solomon which the men of
King Hezekiah of Judah copied" [25:1])
("The words of Lemuel"-part two)
Many verses, such as 4:7; 8:33; 16:1, 3; 20:14-19, are lacking in lfi*. Likewise,
many verses have been added, some of them based on a different Hebrew
original. Further, many verses have been transferred in lfi* to a different place;
note the transposition of several verses in ch. 16 !11+ to the end of ch. 15 in 11)* (11)
15:27a = m 16:6; 11) 15:28a = m 16:7; 11) 15:29a-b = m 16:8-9) and the change of position of 16:4. These phenomena are coupled with the omission in the same context
of 15:31; 16:1,3, and the replacement of 16:6-8 m with two different Greek verses
(numbered 16:7-8 by Rahlfs-Hanhart*). By the same token, the sequence of the
verses in chapters 17, 20, and 31 differs completely from tn+ ...... Tov* 1999 and
Clifford*, 55-6. Fox* and Forti-Talshir* 32 likewise recognize that 11)* reflects a
different Vorlage. 33
6. Different Chronological Systems in Genesis 5, 8, 11: m+, w., and*

C. Hayes, A Dissertation on the Chronology of the Septuagint with an Appendix Shewing that the
Chaldean and Egyptian Antiquities, Hitherto Esteem'd Fabulous, Are Perfectly Consistent with the
Computations of That Most Ancie11t Version of the Holy Scriptures (London: T. Woodward,
1741); Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 49-{)2; R.W. Klein, "Archaic Chronologies and the Textual
History of the Old Testament," HTR 67 (1974) 255-63; A. Klostermann, NKZ 5 (1894) 208-47
= Der Pentateuch (2"d ed.; Leipzig: Bohme, 1907); G. Larsson, "The Chronology of the
Pentateuch: A Comparison of MT and LXX," JBL 102 (1983) 401-9; J. Skinner, Genesis (ICC;
2"d ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1930) 134, 167,233.
In Genesis, w. and * (albeit .with differences between them) differ

systematically from !ll+ in their presentation of the chronological data in
the genealogies in chapters 5, 8, and 11. These discrepancies ultimately
derive from differences in outlook among the Hebrew sources and the
32 These two scholars are aware of the translator's exegetical changes, but they claim that
the translators would not have made such major alterations as those described above.
33 A different view is presented by Cook* 2003-2009, who ascribes the deviating sequence
to the translator himself. Indeed, the translation is free and often paraphrastic and
it contains a larger number of translation doublets than the other books in
..... Tov*
1999. At the same time, one often recognizes variants behind the exegetical expansions
that likely were based on a Hebrew expansionistic and exegetical Vorlage different from
Ill+. Polak*, holding an intermediate position between Tov* and Cook*, suggests that
the translator may have changed the sequence of verses, but not of chapters.
306
Vorlage of *. 34 The data presented in tables by Skinner* and Hendel* are

discussed by Klein*, Larsson*, and Hendel*. According to Klein*, the
systems of ffi+, *,and m derived from an early tradition, changed in all
three sources. On the other hand, Larsson* defended the priority of ffi+
while earlier Hayes* and Klostermann* had defended the priority of*,
which, according to Klostermann, was based on Hebrew sources.
7. 1-2 Kings (3--4 Kingdoms) in*
a. Literary (Editorial) Differences between* and m+ in 1 Kings

Gooding, "Text and Midrash"; id., Relics; van Keulen, Two Versions; I. Hooykaas, lets over de
grieksche vertaling van het Oude Testament (Rotterdam: Eeltjes, 1888); Hugo, Elie (2005); id,.,
"Le grec ancien" (2006); Schenker, Septante (2000); id., A/teste Textgeschichte der KonigsbUcher:
Die hebriiische Vorlage der ursprUnglichen Septuagintl1 als iilteste Textform der KonigsbUcher
(OBO 199; Freiburg/Gottingen: Universitatsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004); Z.
Talshir, "The Image of the Septuagint Edition of the Book of Kings," Tarbiz 59 (1990) 249302 (Heb. with Eng. abstract); ead., The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom: 3
Kingdoms 12:24a-z Oerusalem Biblical Studies 6; Jerusalem: Simor, 1993); ead., "1 Kings and
3 Kingdoms-Origin and Revision, Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11)," Textus 21
(2002) 71-105; Tov, "3 Kingdoms Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions," in
Flores Florentino (2007) 345-66; id., "Three Strange Books" (2008); J.C. Trebolle Barrera,
Salomon y ]erobodn: Historia de Ia recension de 1 Reyes 2-12; 14 (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis,
Dissertationes 3; Salamanca/Jerusalem, 1980); id., "Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in
the Books of Kings," BJOSCS 15 (1982) 12-35; id., "The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint
in the Books of Kings," in Cox, Vll Congress (1991) 285-99; A.S. Turkanik, Of Kings and
Reigns: A Study of Translation Technique in the Gamma/Gamma Section of 3 Reigns (1 Kings)
(FAT 30; Ttibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
l\J-3 Kingdoms (m-1 Kings) poses a greater challenge for the researcher
than l\J-1-2, 4 Kingdoms (m-1-2 Samuel, 2 Kings), and its deviations from
are among the greatest in Greek Scripture. Since the translation is

relatively literal and the Greek pluses can be retroverted relatively easily
into Hebrew, these discrepancies probably derived from its Hebrew
Vorlage, and not from the translator. Beyond a large number of pluses,
minuses, and differences from ffi+, that translation reflects a number of
idiosyncratic features:
ffi+
Addition in ch. 2 of two long theme summaries (previously named additions

or miscellanies) focusing on Solomon's wisdom (lfi-3 Kgdms 2:35a-o, 46a-l). These
summaries repeat various sections occurring elsewhere in the book. This device
is not used elsewhere in ffi+ or lfi.
Duplication of sections as part of the rewriting procedure. The rewritten text
of lfi-3 Kingdoms repeated 1 Kgs 22:41-51 (description of Jehoshaphat's activities)
34 On the other hand, E. Preuss, Die Zeitrechnung der Septuaginta vor dem vierten jahr
Saloma's (Berlin: Dehmigke, 1859) ascribed these differences to the Greek translator.
307
B: Evidence
in 3 Kgdms 16:28a-h and 1 Kgs 9:24 in v 9a of the same chapter. The device of
repeating sections is not used elsewhere in !TI+ or II).
Inclusion of an alternative version. A lengthy alternative history of Jeroboam, extant only in 11)-3 Kgdms 12:24a-z, presents a rival story juxtaposed with the
original one found in all textual sources including II) (1 Kings 11, 12, 14). The
technique of juxtaposing two versions of the same story was used from ancient
times onwards in the composition of Hebrew Scripture. However, with one
exception (1 Samuel 16-18; -+ 4a), there is no parallel for the juxtaposition of
two alternative versions appearing in one textual witness but not in the others.
The transposition of verses to other environments in accord with the
reviser's tendencies, especially his chronological rearrangements: for example, 1
Kgs 3:1 and 9:16-17a are repositioned as 11)-3 Kgdms 5:14b; 1 Kgs 5:7-8 is
repositioned as 11)-3 Kgdms 5:1; 1 Kgs 5:31-32 and 6:37-38 are moved to 11)-3
Kgdms 6:1a-d; 1 Kgs 8:12-13 is placed in 11)-3 Kgdms 8:53a; verses from 9:15-22 are
placed in 10:22a-c; etc. This technique is also evidenced elsewhere in !TI+ or II).
The changes in II) are best described as the rewriting of an earlier text like m,
parallel to the rewriting in LU and the Qumran rewritten compositions ...... Tov*
2008 and 18, 21, 23 below. Among other things, the rewritten text included in
the source of II) presents the "sinners" Solomon, Jeroboam, and Ahab in a more
favorable light than !TI+, it adds "theme summaries," rearranges the sequence,
and reorganizes the chronology of the book. Chapters 2, 5, and 11 in II) emphasize
Solomon's wisdom in order to enhance his personality. -+ Talshir* 2002. In their
Greek form, and probably also in the earlier Hebrew form from which the
translation was made, these units were considered to be Scripture and as
authoritative as !TI+. Note also the different sequence of chapters 20-21 in II)* ......
8. It is unknown why only the OG+ of 11)-3 Kingdoms or nt+ of 1 Kings was
rewritten within 1-4 Kingdoms, but probably the OG translator coincidentally
used a revised Hebrew scroll for this part of 11)-1-4 Kingdoms. -+ Tov,
"Coincidental Textual Nature," 156-60
On the other hand, according to Trebolle Barrera* 1982, 1991; Schenker* 2000,
2004, 173; and Hugo* 2005, II) reflects a redactional stage anteceding !TI+. Schenker
2000 suggests that the edition of m+ changed the earlier edition reflected in 11).3 5
Another alternative view according to which 113-3 Kingdoms reflects a midrashic+
reworking of m-1 Kings was suggested by Gooding* and Turkanik*.
b. Different Chronological Systemsin
m+ in 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms)
Burney, Kings, xlii-xliii; R.W. Klein, "Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the
Old Testament," HTR 67 (1974) 255-63; Shenkel, Chronology; H. Tadmor, "krwnwlwgyh,"
EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1962) 4.245-310 (252-62); E.R. Thiele, The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951).
35 Schenker* 2000, 36-7, 152-3 dates them edition to between 250 and 130 BCE, probably
closer to the later end of this spectrum, based on 11)-1 Kgs 2:35, among other things.
According to m+, Solomon appointed "Zadok the priest" instead of Ebiatar, while
according to II), Zadok was appointed as "the first priest." Schenker considers II) the
earlier version, reflecting the appointment of the high priests by the kings, while m+
reflects a later reality initiated with Siinon Maccabee in 140 BCE when kings could no
longer make such appointments. According to Schenker* 2000, 144-6, m repressed the
earlier formulation in this case as well as in 1 Kgs 12:31, 2 Kgs 17:29, 32.
308
and 113* in 1-2 Kings differ systematically in their chronology. The

extensive chronological differences with regard to synchronisms and the
counting of the years of the divided monarchy between ffi+ and \13* in
Kings, listed by Burney* and Tadmor*, were given a detailed discussion
by Thiele* and Shenkel*. These differences cover mainly the periods
between Omri and Joram, kings of Israel, and Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah,
kings of Judah, but they started at an earlier period. According to
Shenkel* and several other scholars, 36 the chronological system underlying* has been altered to that now reflected in ffi+, and the differences
between these systems are possibly rooted in the different understanding
of the background of 2 Kings 3 (thus Shenkel*, 87 ff.). On the other hand,
Thiele* and Tadmor*, 255 believe that * changed the earlier text,
especially in those chapters that contained conflicting chronological data.
ffi+
c. Different Chronologies and Editorial Layers in 2 Kings in* and m+

The same chronological changes as analyzed above for 1 Kings (113-3
Kingdoms) are found in 2 Kings (-4 Kingdoms). That translation (kaigeTh+) contains a very literal version of a text similar to ffi+. In this book, in
which the OG+ translation is probably contained in the Lucianic+ manuscripts, editorial traits are reflected in those manuscripts,3 7making them
an important source for the text-critical and exegetical analysis.
d. Different Arrangement of the Books of Samuel-Kings in Luc and m+,1ft
Bogaert, "Septante," 596; Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 19; J. Trebolle
Barrera, "Samuel/Kings and Chronicles; Book Division and Text Composition," in Studies
in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. P.W. Flint et al.;
VTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 96-108.
Luc, Josephus, Ant. VIII and Theodoret's commentary commence \13-3

Kingdoms (1 Kings) at 1 Kgs 2:12 after the death of David.- Thackeray*.
This conception of the division of Samuel-Kings may have been
36 Shenkel, Chronology; J.M. Miller, "The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride
Wars," JBL 85 (1966) 441-54; id., "Another Look at the Chronology of the Early Divided
Monarchy," JBL 86 (1967) 267-88; Klein, Textual Criticism, 36-46; W.R. Wifall, Jr., "The
Chronology of the Divided Monarchy," ZA W 80 (1968) 319-37; S.J. De Vries,
"Chronology, Old Testament," IDBSup, 161-6.
37 See J.C. Trebolle Barrera, Jehu y fods. Texto y composici6n literaria de 2 Reyes 9-11
(Instituci6n San Jeronimo 17; Valencia, 1984); id., "From the 'Old Latin' through the
'Old Greek' to the 'Old Hebrew' (2 Kings 10,23-25)," Textus 11 (1984) 17-36; id., "La
primitiva confesi6n de fe yahvista (1 Re 18,36-37): De Ia crftica textual a Ia teologia
biblica," Salmanticensis 31 (1984) 181-205; id., "Old Latin, Old Greek and Old Hebrew in
the Book of Kings (1 Ki. 18:27 and 2 Ki. 20:11)," Textus 13 (1986) 85-94; id., "Le texte de 2
Rois 7,20-8,5 a Ia lumiere des decouvertes de Qumran (6Q415)," RevQ 13 (1988) 561--8.
B: Evidence
309
indicated already in the OG+ translation and possibly also in the Hebrew
manuscript from which the translation was made.
8. Sequence Differences
and !11+
E. Tov, "Some Sequence Differences between the MT and LXX and Their Ramifications for
the Literary Criticism of the Bible," in id., Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999) 57-70.
Major sequence differences between m+ and

are mentioned above
with regard to Jeremiah ( 1), Joshua (2), Ezekiel (3), Proverbs (5), and 1
Kings (7a, d). Such differences may point to literary (editorial) differences
in these and several additional instances. Differences in sequence often
concern sections, whose position had not yet been fixed in the textual
traditions because of their secondary nature. --+ Tov 1999*. 38 This
uncertainty pertains to the aforementioned and following sections.
Num 10:34-36. In dJ*, the order of these verses differs from lll+ (35, 36, 34).
Unless otherwise denoted, dJ follows lll+ in matters of detail, but not in sequence:
35
36
34
When the Ark was to set out, Moses would say: Advance,
0 LORD! May Your enemies be scattered,
and all (dJ) Your foes flee before You!
And when it halted, he would say: Return, 0 LORD,
the myriads of thousands in (dJ) Israel!
And the cloud (dJ) kept above them by day, as they moved
on from the camp.
The sequence of dJ*, in which v 35, referring to the Ark, comes immediately
after v 33, where the Ark is also mentioned, is possibly more natural, while in m+,
v 34 comes between the two. The differing sequences were created by the late
addition in different places of the "Song of the Ark" (vv 35-36}, which originally
was not included in its present place. For the secondary status of this section in
the Masorah+, see the inverted nunim+ ...... p. 51
Gen 31:46-48 appear in dJ* in the sequence 46, 48a, 47. In vv 45-46, Jacob and
his relatives erect a pillar and make a mound. According to dJ*, Laban announces
that this mound will be a witness qetween the two (v 48a), and afterwards they
name the place "Mound of Witness" (47}. lll+ places the Aramaic and Hebrew
names (v 47) before Laban's statements (v 48a}, probably representing a later
addition located in different places in lll+ and dJ*_39
Solomon's blessing at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kgs 8:12-13) appears in
dJ* after v 53, following Solomon's blessing in prose (vv 14-21) and his prayer (vv
22-53), both of which are deuteronomistic+ additions in the context.
38 After the completion of the writing, there was no space in the columns, margins, or
elsewhere in the scroll for any addition longer than one verse.-+ Tov*, "Early Scrolls"
39 The issue is more complex since vv 46; 48a, 47, 51, 52a, 48b, 49, 50, 52b in dJ* as well as
vv 18, 26-27, 32-35 differ also in other details from m+. H. Seebass, "LXX und MT in
Gen 31, 44-53," BN 34 (1986) 30-38 (36) considers dJ an older "recension" than m.
310
1 Kings 20-21 appear in

in reverse order. This order possibly stems from
the secondary character of ch. 21 (the story of Naboth's vineyard).40 It may also
(thus D.W. Gooding, "Ahab
reflect the rewriting of the Vorlage of this book
According to the Septuagint," ZA W 76 (1964) 269-80). - 7a
fer 23:7-8 appear

after the unit comprising vv 9-40, which deals with
prophets; note the title of the unit in 23:9,
"Concerning the prophets." The
position of this unit was probably not fixed.
9. Different Literary Editions of2 Kings 20 II Isaiah 38?

Van der Kooij, "Textual Criticism" (2003) 735-6; ]. Stromberg, "The Role of Redaction
Criticism in the Evaluation of a Textual Variant: Another Look at 1Qisaa XXXII 14 (38:2122)," DSD 16 (2009) 155-89; Talmon, "New Outlook," 328-32; Ulrich, "Developmental
Composition" (2001); Y. Zakovitch, "Assimilation in Biblical Narratives," in Tigay, Models,
175-96.
lQisaa may reflect different stages in the development of a story known

from two parallel texts in the following way.
In the order of the events in ffi+,
2 Kgs 20:1-11 one detects a flaw: In vv 16, Hezekiah falls ill and Isaiah passes on to him a promise from God (v 5):
"I am going to heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the House
of the LORD."
In the continuation, Hezekiah asks (v 8):
"What is the sign that the LORD will heal me and that I shall go up to
the House of the LORD on the third day?"
According to v 8, Hezekiah is not yet healed, while v 7 reports that he has
already recovered.
"Then Isaiah said, 'Get a cake of figs.' And they got one, and they
applied it to the rash, and he recovered."
There are also other reasons why v 7 is not appropriate in the context. 41
Therefore, it seems that v 7 was added in Kings, 42 possibly in order to adapt this
account to the other prophetic stories, especially those of the Elisha cycle.
While there is no counterpart to 2 Kgs 20:7 in the parallel story in Isaiah (38:18), vv 7-8 of Kings are placed at the end of the chapter in Isaiah. Therefore, the
conclusion cannot be avoided that the problematic verses 7-8 were transferred
from Kings to Isaiah, where they appear in a slightly different formulation at the
end of the story (Isa 38:21-22). The question in v 22 ("What is the sign that I shall
go up to the House of the LORD?"), which is not followed by an answer, betrays
40 Thus A. Rofe, "The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story," VT 38
(1988) 89-104.
41 The description of the cure and the content of the story differ from those of other
prophetic stories, and the mention of the skin disease contradicts what is said at the
beginning of the story about Hezekiah being dangerously ill. - Zakovitch*
42 One wonders whether the Kings story could have existed without a conclusion such as
those in v 7 and in Isa 38:9. If v 7 is removed from its present place, the reader would
understand that the healing of the king, which is not mentioned explicitly, is implied.
B: Evidence
311
its secondary nature. This verse ought to have appeared in Isaiah before v 7, as in
Kings. It is not impossible that vv 21-22 were placed in their present position
because of the occurrence of the phrase "the House of the LORD" in v 20
(recurring in v 22).
Textual analysis provides background material for the content analysis of
these two chapters. The fact that Isa 38:21-22 is an addition can be recognized in
1Qisaa, where these two verses were added in a different hand in the open space
at the end of the line, and continuing into the margin. 43 This scroll thus preserves
two stages in the book's development: the base text, which includes the short
original text and the addition made according to the parallel story in Kings, albeit
in an inappropriate position, as in the other textual witnesses. If this analysis is
correct, 44 the addition in 1Qisaa, apparently from Kings, and made in another
hand, bears evidence of the existence of different co,f:ies of the book, reflecting
the various stages of the growth of the book of Isaiah. 5
10. Long and Short Texts ofl Samuel11: 4QSama and !TI+,
Barthelemy, Critique textuel/e 1982, 166-72; A. Catastini, "4QSama: II. Nahash il 'Serpente',"
Henoch 10 (1988) 17-42; F.M. Cross, "The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and
Reuben: Missing Verses from 1 Samuel 11 Found in 4QSamuela," in Tov, Samuel (1980) 10520 = History, Historiography and Interpretation (ed. H. Tadmor & M. Weinfeld; Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1983) 148-58; Lange, Handbuch, 219-20; Pisano, Additions or Omissions, 91-8; A.
Rofe, "The Acts of Nahash according to 4QSama," IEJ 32 (1982) 129-33.
The original, long text of 1 Samuel 11 is probably preserved in 4QSama

(DJD XVII), while the text of m+, based on a scribal error, omits an entire
section. According to this view, 4QSama does not preserve an earlier
stage in the growth of the book than all other witnesses, but what
appears to be the original text, which was subsequently corrupted. The
plus in the Qumran scroll contains the prologue to the story in m+, which
is now more understandable. After the words "and they brought him no
gift" at the end of ch. 10 in m+ and after an open section+, 4QSama adds a
":1",, "but he pretended
section reproduced in Table 5. The words
not to mind" (NJPS), of m+ in i0:27 appear in 4QSama at the end of the
added section, albeit in a different form (line 9, above the line).
43 Kutscher, l..Jinguage, 444 adduced linguistic arguments for the lateness of this section.
44 Harmonizing interpretations of the difficulties in Isaiah are mentioned by Zakovitch*.
45 On the other hand, the short text (the first hand of the scroll) could reflect an omission
by way of homoioteleuton+ (from the first occurrence of "the House of the Lord" to the
second occurrence of that phrase), in which case the concurrence of textual and literary
data would be coincidental (thus van der Kooij* and Stromberg*); for another case of
parablepsis in the immediate vicinity in this scroll, see Isa 40:7-8.
312
Table 5
A Large Addition in 4QSama in 1 Samuelll
['-,1]S Ci1'-, ipJ1 i1pin:::l]:::l1!(i 'J:::l nN1
[]ii'i1 i:::l]ll:::l
'J:::l:::l
C'!:l'-,N
!(1'-,1
j!( ]nJ1 ro J'[.!l]
J[i1]1 ]'0' ]'.!l '-,1::l]10[.!l ]'J:::l [l'-,o
iD'::J' .,ll]n'1
[l'-, ]6
'J:::l n!( rn'-, !(1i1 ]10ll'J:::ll'-,o
om "ll'1 11:1 iDin
'-,N
[c;:,'-, ni::l!( n!(i:::l 'J10.!li1]
1'-, '1p[J !(1]'-,
7
8
(sup.) 9
';"1'1
'-,1;:, 1i0N'1 i.!l'-,5
'-,!( 1!(::::!'1 ]10.!l
"J:J [i'O
c[i1]'-,[!( i0!('12li:::ll)J1 n"i:::l 1J]'-, [ni::l]10l) ::::!]
9
10
The translation of the plus in lines 6-9 of 4QSam 3 is printed in cursive. The other lines
represent the text of m. The supralinear addition (by the same scribe) above line 9 was made
after an initial homoioteleuton + from i.!l'?j ill:!' to ill':!'.
6
7
8
9
[And Na]hash, king of the children of Ammon, sorely oppressed the children of
Gad and the children of Reuben, and he gouged out a[ll] their
right ey[es] and he granted no deliverer to (?) [l]srael. There was not left one
among the children of Israel bey[ond the Jordan]
[who]se right eye was no[t go]uged out by Naha[sh king] of the children of
[A]mmon; and they were seven thousand men
[who fled from] the children of Ammon and entered [/]abesh-Gilead. (above the
line: About a month later, Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh)
10
and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash k[ing]

[of the children of Ammon, "Make] with [us a covenant and we shall
become your subjects."] Nahash [the Ammonite said t]o [th]em, ["After
this fashion will I make a covenant with you]
According to !11+, Nahash's condition for making a treaty with Jabesh-Gilead

is that he would gouge out everyone's right eye. This action seems to be very
brutal in them+ context of the treaty, but is more easily understood in the wake
of the plus in 4QSam 3 . The longer text of 4QSam 3 first adds a section relating
how Nahash mutilated the Gadites and Reubenites by gouging out their eyesthis punishment for arch-enemies or rebels is well known from Assyrian
documents ...... Cross* 1980, 114. In light of this longer text, it is understandable
why Nahash would demand the same treatment for the men of Jabesh-Gilead
who had earlier escaped the mutilation.
The following arguments may be used in favor of the originality of the plus of
4QSam 3 .--+ Cross* 1980; McCarter, I Samuel, 199
The brutality of Nahash's approach in m+ without any introductory
statement seems to be out of order in that text.
At the beginning of the plus in 4QSam 3 , the king is presented as "Nahash
king of the children of Ammon" (lines 6, 8) with the full title, and in the
continuation with his shortened name, as "Nahash the Ammonite" (line 9 = 11:1
in m+, and also in the next verses). This practice is customary in biblical
narratives ..... Table 2b (pp. 293-4); Cross* 1980, 111
B: Evidence
313
The phrase iDin

'i1'1, "about a month later," in line 9, above the line,
which is also reflected in Josephus, Ant. VI 68 and in at 11:1 instead of the
graphically similar
'i1'1 of m+, is appropriate in the context of 4QSama,46
while the reading of m+ is contextually difficult, though not impossible
'i1'1
may be expected). The textual difference reflects a difference in word division+
and an interchange+ of daleth I resh.
The plus was known to Jos., Ant. VI 68-71, with a slightly different
arrangement of the sequence of events. Likewise, in several other instances
Josephus reflects a text identical to that of 4QSama. 47
The plus of 4QSama was accidentally omitted at a very early stage since it is
preserved in only one direct textual witness. The omission of this paragraph was
probably due to its being a content unit beginning after an open section (thus
4QSama, line 5) and ending with an open section in what is now the middle of
line 9. On the other hand, some scholars explain the plus of 4QSama as a
midrashic+ addition. 48
11. Two Literary Editions of Judges 6 in 4QJudga and !TI+, \13?

N. Fernandez Marcos, "The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Judges," in Schenker, Earliest Texts
(2003) 1-16; R.S. Hess, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Higher Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: The
Case of 4QJudga," in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S.E. Porter &
CA. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 122-8; A. Rofe, "Studying the
Biblical Text in the Light of Historico-Literary Criticism: The Reproach of the Prophet in
Judg 6:7-10 and 4QJudga," in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls
in the Study of Ancient Texts, umguages, and Cultures (ed. A. Lange et a!.; VTSup 140/1;
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011) 111-23 = Border Line (Heb.) 33-44; J. Trebolle Barrera, "Textual
Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges," RevQ 14
(1989) 229-45; id., DJD XIV (1995) 161-9.
An entire section found in m+, \13 is lacking in 4QJudga, viz., Judg 6:7-10,
as illustrated by Table 6 ...... Trebolle Barrera*. If this minus did not stem
from a textual accident, such as the omission of a complete paragraph, 49
it could reflect an earlier literary version of the book, in which part of the
Dtr+ framework, contained here in 6:7-10, had not yet been found.
46 The meaning of tvin 11:1:> ':1'1 would be "after a month" (cf. Gen 19:15), while iDinr_;i:> ':1'1
"after about a month" (cf. Gen 38:24) would have been more appropriate.
47 Thus Ulrich, Josephus, 165-91.
48 According to Rofe* 1982, Barthelemy* 1982, Pisano* 1984, Catastini* 1988, Lange* 2009,
the addition in 4QSama explains unclear details in the context on the basis of themes
found elsewhere in the Bible.
49 The section, presumably beginning and ending with open section+ markers as in m,
may have been omitted by mistake even though in the textual tradition of 4QJudga this
is a running text not marked by such indicators. According to Hess* 1997, Fernandez
Marcos* 2003, and Rofe* 2005 it is unlikely that such a relatively late text as 4QJudga
would have preserved the original wording of this chapter.
314
Table 6
The Absence offudg 6:7-10 from 4Qfudga

The text below represents m. The words in italics in parenthesis are lacking in 4QJudga.
6 Israel
was reduced to utter misery by the Midianites; and the

Israelites cried out to the LORD. f And it came to pass, when the Israelites
cried to the LORD because of Midian, 8 that the LORD sent a prophet to the
Israelites, who said to them: "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, I
brought you up out of Egypt, and freed you from the house of bondage. 9 I
rescued you from tile Egyptians, and from all who oppressed you, and drove
them out from before you, and gave you their land. 10 And I said to you, I am
the LORD your God; you must not worship the gods of the Amorites, in whose
land you dwell; but you did not obey Me."} 11 And an angel of the LORD
came, and sat under the terebinth at
which belonged to Joash
the Abiezrite, as his son Gideon was beating out wheat inside the
winepress, in order to keep it safe from the Midianites.
12. Two Literary Editions of Deuteronomy 5 in 4QPhyl A, B, J and m+

Rofe, Deuteronomy, 25-36.
The text of three different tefillin, 4QPhyl A, B, J, as reconstructed by

Rofe*, lacks Deut 5:29-30 (32-33). Their shorter text, regarded as
homoioteleuton+ by J.T. Milik, DJD VI, 48-53, 64-7, is explained by Rofe*
as an originally short text reflecting an earlier stage of the chapter than
all other textual witnesses. In this earlier text, the logical continuation of
5:28 (31) is 6:1, now interrupted by an admonition to preserve the
commandments of the LORD in vv 29-30 (32-33); cf. 11:32 in a similar
context.
13. Different Literary Editions of Joshua: 4QJosha and m+,
H. Debe!, "A Quest for Appropriate Terminology: The Joshua Texts as a Case in Point," in
The Book of Joshua and the Land of lsrael (ed. E. Noort; BETL; Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA:
Peeters) forthcoming (2012); F. Garcia Martinez, "Light on the Joshua Books from the Dead
Sea Scrolls," in After Qumran: Old and New Editions of Biblical Texts. The Historical Books (ed.
H. Ausloos et al.; BETL; Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA: Peeters), forthcoming; Mazor,
"Septuagint" (1994); E. Noort, "4QJosha and the History of Tradition in the Book of
Joshua," JNSL 24 (1998) 127-44; A. Rofe, "The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of
4QJosha," in Brooke, New Qumran Texts (1994) 73--80; Tov, "Literary Development" (2012);
Ulrich, "Joshua" (1994); id., DJD XIV (1995) 143--52.
In small details, 4QJosha (publication: DJD XIV) goes its own way but the
scroll usually follows ffi+ in large details, except for these sections:
1. Col. I 1-4 contains a combination of verses from chapters 8, 4, and 5, in this
sequence, as well as additional elements not found in ffi+, (1}*. Furthermore, Josh
B: Evidence
315
4:19-5:1 of m+, i1> is not represented in 4QJosha ...... Table 7

2. The greater part of 8:11b-13 is not included in 4QJosha and i1>* ...... p. 294
3. For the possible lack of 8:14b-17, see Tov* 2012.
Table 7
4QJosha Col. I 1-4 (=Josh 8:34-35, 4:18-5:2[-7]) 50
',:l
lltZl;"!' l't,p 1(', ,tZll( .L11tZli[;-r nl't ]iitVO

Jipm ,tVI't ,nl't 4:18 c:J,P:J l',,;,;, [,];;,,
[
]Jril't;-r 'l'ttZm o',[ ]

m:J,n
2
3
4
8:34 .
l"
',:lo ,:J1 ;,;, 1(', 8 :35 ;"T,1flii[ ,ElO:J]
]l"i,;,
,nl't ;-r,,n;, ,ElO nit[
;-rJtD[ll .L1JtV;-r',l( m;, ,ol't 1(;-rft[ nll:J 5:2
]',[
nl't[ ,,:Jll:J ',l't,tV'l
3
4
35
[m the book of the] Torah. There was not a word of all that Moses
commanded [Jo]shua that Joshua did not read before all
[of Israel while crossing] the Jorda[n], and (before) the women and children,
and the alie[ns] who accompanied them. 4:18Ajter were lifted up[ the soles
[of the feet of the priests to the dry ground ... ? they brought up] the book
of the Torah. Afterwards ... [the bearers of the ark cam[e up from the Jordan]
[
] 5 :2 At that [time] the LORD said to Joshu[a, "M]ake[ flint knives]
These three features, each of which may be explained differently, may

point to literary (editorial) features of that scroll that differ from !11+.
While the scroll reflects some early elements, the main deviation of
4QJosha I 1-4 probably reflects a rewritten narrative of the biblical story:5 1
Col. I 4-11 presents the running text of Josh 5:2 onwards. It would be natural
for the preceding lines to present the text leading up to Josh 5:2. We believe that
this is indeed the case, though with some remarkable deviations from m+:
{a) 4:19-5:1 (seven verses) are lacking in this description. See below.
(b) Col. I 1-3 describes the crossing of the Jordan(= Joshua 4), into which 8:3435 Ooshua's reading of the Torah during the course of crossing the Jordan) is
interwoven.
(c) The new elements are contained in lines 2-3 and probably at the beginning
of line 4. These lines provide a rewritten version of Josh 4:18.
The rewritten context presents the story of Joshua differently from m+ i1> and
in the following sequence, based on its appearance in m+: 8:34-35 (reading of the
Torah at the time of erecting the altar, reinterpreted as taking place in the context
of crossing the Jordan), 4:18 (last stage of crossing the Jordan, reinterpreted), 5:2-9
(the circumcision ceremony). 4QJosha probably rewrote a few verses of m+ i1>,
50 Elements differing from m+ are indicated by italics in the translation.
51 Some elements run parallel with 4QapocrJoshb (4Q379) 22 ii 7-15 and the Samaritan
Joshua; see Tov* 2012. It was shown by P. Stenhouse, "Samaritan Chronicles," in The
Samaritans (ed. A.D. Crown; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 218-65 and A.D. Crown,
"New Light on the Inter-relationships of Samaritan Chronicles from Some Manuscripts
in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, I-II," BJRL 54/2 (Manchester: John Rylands
University Library of Manchester, 1912) 1-32, 33-58 (33, 52) that the Samaritan Joshua
was written in the 14'h century utilizing earlier sources. Our interpretation here differs
from TCHB 2, 346.
316
while combining two different events, the crossing of the Jordan (ch. 3-4) and the
reading of the Torah (8:34-35).52
Other scholars consider this scroll an early variant edition of Joshua ...... Ulrich*
1994-1995, Garda Martinez* 2011; see also Debe!* 2012
14. Different Literary Editions of Exodus 35-40: *and m+, .lU

Aejmelaeus, Trail, 107-21; P.-M. Bogaert, "L'importance de Ia Septante et du "Monacensis"
de Ia Vetus Latina pour l'exegese du livre de I'Exode (chap. 35-40)," in Studies in the Book of
Exodus. Redaction-Reception-Interpretation (ed. M. Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: University
Press, 1996) 399-428; A.H. Finn, "The Tabernacle Chapters," JTS 16 (1914-1915) 449--82;
D.W. Gooding. The Account of the Tabernacle (TS, NS VI; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1959); R.D. Nelson, Studies in the Development of the Text of the Tabernacle Account,
Ph.D. diss., Harvard University (Cambridge, MA, 1986); J. Popper, Der biblische Bericht iiber
die Stiftshiitte: Ein Beitrag wr Geschichte der Composition und Diaskeue des Pentateuch (Leipzig:
Hunger, 1862); W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament. in the Jewish Church (2"d ed.; London:
Black, 1908) 124-5.
While *, m+, and .lU agree rather closely in the. first account of the
building, the furniture of the tabernacle, and the vestments of the priests
(Exodus 25-31), in the parallel account in chapters 35-40 they differ
considerably, especially with regard to the internal order of the topics.
The main difference concerns the ornaments of the priesthood (ch. 39
!H+), which in i1>* precede the other items.53 In addition, i1>* lacks some
sections, and in a few places also adds details. Popper*, Robertson
Smith*, and Swete* believe that i1>* is based on a Hebrew text that differs
from !TI+. Continuing this line of research, Aejmelaeus*, 116-21 indicated
the correct direction for a solution by pinpointing variant readings in the
translator's Vorlage and by analyzing his translation technique. *
probably reflects a Hebrew text that differs editorially from !H+. 54
52 Scholars interpreted these lines in 4QJosha in different ways. By overlooking certain
aspects, they did not always interpret the main message of 4QJosha correctly, assuming
that all of Josh 8:30-35 was included at this point. In our view, the beginning of col. I
does not reflect a form of ch. 8, but a rewritten version of the end of ch. 4 utilizing 8:3435. In this rewritten text, pride of place is given to the elements of 4:18, albeit in a
different sequence. It seems that the reading of the Torah was inserted into the context
of crossing the Jordan in the course of the major rewriting of this pericope in 4QJosha.
In many ways, the description of Joshua in Scripture contains several parallels to Moses,
including his crossing of the Jordan, and the addition of the reading of the Torah at that
occasion should be viewed in that light. The reading of the Torah in Josh 8:35 was
adapted by 4QJosha to the context of crossing the Jordan in order to stress the similarity
between Moses and Joshua ...... Tov* 2012 (including a discussion of the literature)
53 For details, see the table in A. Kuenen, A Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and
Composition of the Hexateuch (London: MacMillan, 1886) 76-7 ...... Swete, Introduction,
231-2, 234--6; BHS ad Exod 36:8
54 The discrepancies
and m+ in these chapters probably constitute the greatest
challenge for
scholarship. The problems may not be more vexing than those in 1
B: Evidence
317
On the other hand, Finn* and Gooding* suggested that the translator
or a later reviser rearranged the Greek text without regard for the
Hebrew. 55 Nelson* appears to reflect a mediating position. 56
15a. Different Literary Editions of Esther:* and !11+
Tov, "Three Strange Books" (2008c); id., "The LXX translation of Esther: A Paraphrastic
Translation of MT or a Free Translation of a Rewritten Version?" Empsyclwi Logoi: Religious
Innovations in Antiquity, Studies in Honour of Pieter Wil/em van der Horst (ed. A. Houtman et
a!.; Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 73; Lei den: Brill, 2008d) 507-26.
The historical novel of Esther utilizes dramatic effects and suspense. In

its base form, which is similar to !11+, the story often lacks background
information since it focuses on the actions of the heroes. -Esther is a
translation of a book that reworked a text like m+. This Hebrew rewritten
composition supplied some of this background information. When
compared with nH, * adds clarifying details, omits phrases that may
have been considered verbose or less important (e.g. 3:12, 13; 5:6), and
changes many small details as well as complete verses. It also adds six
large sections, traditionally named Additions A-F, but since Jerome
placed them at the end of the book, they are usually-and
misleadingly-discussed separately. However, these long pluses are an
integral part of the translation, and are therefore better described as
narrative Expansions A-F. These large expansions, rendering the Greek
book more than 50 percent longer, were inserted at key points in the
story: A and Fat the beginning and the end ("Mordecai's Dream" and its
"Interpretation"); C ("Prayers of Mordecai and Esther") and D ("Esther's
Audience with the King") after ch. 4; B (after 4:17) and E (after 5:1)
contain the two edicts of the king. The most characteristic feature of is
the addition of a religious background to a book that lacks the
mentioning of God's name i_n m. 57 -Esther thus conforms to the
remainder of Scripture by explaining the events in Israel's history as
determined by its God.
Kings, Esther, and Daniel (..... 7, 15, 16), but the technical subject matter of these
chapters complicates the analysis.
55 See D.W. Gooding, "On the Use of the LXX for Dating Midrashic Elements in the
Targums," ]TS 25 (1974) 1-11 and Jellicoe, SMS, 273-6 for a convenient summary.
56 Bogaert* suggested that codex Monacensis of VL, disregarded by other scholars, reflects
a third source earlier than m+, l\J*.
57 For example, 2:20; 4:8; 6:13; likewise, God's name is often mentioned in the midrash.
Esther's concern for dietary laws in Expansion C 27-28 parallels b. Meg. 13a and Targum
Sheni 2:7; for l\J Esth 2:7 "he trained her for himself as a wife" (m "Mordecai adopted her
<Esther> as his own daughter"), cf. b. Meg. 13a "A Tanna taught in the name of R. Meir:
Read not 'for a daughter' [/e-bat], but 'for a house' [/e-bayit] <that is, a wife>."
318
\1;-Esther is difficult to analyze because of its free and often

paraphrastic translation character. Some of the paraphrases were
triggered by the translator's misunderstanding of the Hebrew source
text, but often we recognize Hebrew variants in small details behind the
translation (e.g. 1:1, 2; 9:12). The original language of Expansions A, C, D,
and Fin \1; was Hebrew.-+ Tov* 2008c-d
lSb. Different Literary Editions of Esther: 11jA-Text and m+
Clines, Esther; Fox, Esther; Jobes, Esther; E. Tov, "The 'Lucianic' Text of the Canonical and
the Apocryphal Sections of Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book," in id., Greek-Hebrew Bible
(1999) 535-48.
The 11jA-Text 58 of Esther is based on \1; but corrects it towards a Hebrew
text that differs from ffi+ and the Vorlage of \1;. It is based on a Hebrew
Vorlage.-+ Tov* 1999, 538-9. The survival of this text together with \1; thus
provides us with access to two different rewritings of the Esther story.
Clines* and Fox* go a step further since, according to them, 11jA-Text
reflects a pristine text that aids us in reconstructing the development of
the Hebrew book.59 Jobes* likewise believes that 11jA-Text is based on a
Hebrew original that was much shorter than ffi+, but very similar to that
text where the two overlap. On the other hand, De Troyer believes that
11jA-Text presents an inner-Greek revision not based on a different Hebrew
Vorlage.60 Occasionally 11jA-Text agrees with actual midrashim+ on Esther in
the Targumim and in the collections of midrashim.
16. Different Literary Editions of Daniel: \1;* and lll+

T. McLay, "The Old Greek Translation of Daniel IV-VI and the Formation of the Book of
Daniel," VT 55 (2005) 304-23; Tov, "Three Strange Books" (2008c) with earlier bibliography.
The relationship between many details in m+ and \1;-0aniel 4-6 cannot be
determined easily, but most scholars believe that \1; reflects a later
58 This text is also named "Lucianic," although it has little to do with the Lucianic
tradition in the other books
.... R. Hanhart, Esther, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum
graecum, etc., VIII, 3 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 87-95
59 If that view were correct,
would be of major importance for the literary analysis
of that book. Clines*, for example, believes that the original book ended at 8:17 (7:17 in
the A-text).
60 K. De Troyer, Het einde van de Alpha-tekst van Ester (Leuven: Peeters, 1997); The End of
the Alpha Text of Esther: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1-17, LXX 8:1-17, and
AT 7:14-41 (SBLSCS 48; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000).
B: Evidence
reworking of a book like ffi+, although occasionally

form. 61
319
reflects an earlier
changed, added, and omitted many details in ch. 4. Among other things, it
places the opening verses of chapter 4 (= 3:31-33 in m+) later in the chapter, in a
greatly expanded form, as v 34c. The story in m+ starts with these verses, which
contain the king's confession of guilt and his recognition of God's greatness,
while
they constitute the end of the account in the form of a doxology+, as
in 6:26-27 and elsewhere.
m+ has a tendency to change details in the wording of the dream in ch. 4 to
agree with the subsequent description of its interpretation.
goes one step
further by reporting the fulfillment of the command within the dream itself, in
the added verse 14a (17a). This long verse, which repeats the wording of the
earlier verses, reports the cutting down of the tree and its metamorphosis, now
symbolizing the king, into a beast: "He ate grass with the animals of the earth ... "
(for the wording, cf. v 12).
Preceding the beginning of ch. 5 (King Belshazzar's banquet and the writing
on the wall),
adds a summary of the chapter that is not matched by m + or
Theodotion+. This summary includes the transliterated inscription written on the
wall (v 25), which is not included in
The summary partially duplicates the
content of the chapter; thus it begins with the same words as v 1, which introduce
the king's feast. Differing in details from m +
this addition, translated from
Aramaic, 62 must have summarized a slightly different form of the chapter. 63
According to other scholars, the Vorlage of
which differs significantly from m+ especially in chapters 4-6, preceded m+.6 4 Pap. Chester Beatty
(967) of displays the chapters in a different sequence (1-4, 7, 8, 5, 6, 9-12, Bel,
Suzanna), perhaps reflecting an earlier literary edition. On the other hand,
McLay*, 309 believes that Pap. 967 reflects a secondary tradition.
17. Ezra-Nehemiah:
m+
D. Bohler, "On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism: Two Recensions of
the Book of Ezra: Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX)," in Schenker, Earliest Text (2003) 3550; id., "Literarischer Machtkampf. Drei Ausgaben des Esrabuches im Streit urn das wahre
Israel und die Legitimation von Herrschaft," in ]uda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit:
61 For example, in 4:3-6, !lH describes a competition between Daniel and the magicians
not found in l\3. m+ is problematic, since the magicians are found unable to interpret a
dream before its content is described.
62 R. Grelot, "La chapitre V de Daniel dans Ia Septante," Sem 24 (1974) 45-66; ]. Collins, A
Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 241.
63 The summary may be compared to the theme summaries in l\3-3 Kingdoms 2. --+ 7a.
The two summaries use different techniques, since the one in Daniel recaps the events
told in the chapter, while l\3-3 Kingdoms 2 duplicates verses around a common theme.
64 0. Munnich, "Texte Massoretique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel," in Schenker,
Earliest Text, 93-120; R. Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel, Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4-6 in der
Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramiiischen Danielbuches (SBS
131; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988); R. Grelot, "La Septante de Daniel IV et son
substrat semitique," RB 81 (1974) 5-23 assumes a different editorial model in ch 4.
According to Ulrich, DSS, 34-50 (40-44), the editions of both m+ and l\3* reflect revised
expansions of an earlier edition.
320
Herrschaft-Widerstand-ldentitiit: Festschrift fiir Heinz-Josef Fabry (ed. U. Dahmen & J.

Schnocks; BBB 159; Bonn: University Press/V&R Unipress, 2010) 125-45; K.-F. Pohlmann,
"Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Schloss des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FRLANT 104; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970).
According to Pohlmann* and Bohler*, the literary shape of several chapters in 1

Esdras is older than the parallel chapters in m Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.
Bohler describes how 1 Esdras depicts the situation in Jerusalem differently than
the picture drawn by Ezra-Nehemiah. In 1 Esdras, Jerusalem was resettled at the
time of Zerubbabel and Ezra, while in Ezra-Nehemiah this process occurred
later, during Nehemiah's time. 65 Reflecting this opinion, the apparatus of BHQ
frequently quotes 1 Esdras in the edition of Ezra.66
In a similar vein, the IIJ* list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Nehemiah 11 (2
Esdras 21 IIJ) is considerably shorter than that in ffi+ in vv 25-35, and possibly
more original. These lists display two different stages in the development of the
document, both differing from the parallel list in.1 Chronicles 9.6 7
18. Scripture-Like Compositions

U. Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Friihjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand,
Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle llQPsa aus Qumran (STDJ 49; Lei den/ Boston: Brill,
2003); P.W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill,
1997); Lange, Handbuch, 415-50; J.A. Sanders, DJD IV (1965); E. Tov, "Excerpted and
Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran," in id., HB, GB, and Qumran (2008e) 27-41; G.H.
Wilson, "The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in
the Hebrew Psalter," CBQ 45 (1983) 377-88; id., The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76;
Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985).
A large number of Qumran scrolls contain Scripture texts that were

prepared for liturgical purposes and as excerpted or partial scrolls for
personal use. Since they are not Scripture scrolls in the regular sense of
the word, their major deviations from m+, IIJ* should not be taken into
consideration in the textual-literary analysis, while small differences
remain relevant for the text-critical analysis. The inclusion of these scrolls
in this chapter enables the reader to form his/her own judgment on their
possible relevance to the textual-literary analysis; in our view they are
not relevant to this area.
Liturgical scrolls. Several Qumran scrolls including both canonical and
"apocryphal" psalms carry the component "Ps(alms)" in their name. This name
65 Various opinions, reviewed in 1991 by A. Schenker, "La relation d' 'Esdras A' au texte
masson?tique d'Esdras-Nehemie," in Tradition of the Text, 218-49 (246-8), have been
expressed concerning the relation of 1 Esdras to the canonical books. According to
Schenker himself, this book contains midrashic+, and hence late, elements.
66 See D. Marcus, "How BHQ Differs from BHS in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah," in S6fer
Mahir (2006) 169-76.
67 See G.N. Knoppers, "Sources, Revisions, and Editions: The Lists of Jerusalem's
Residents in MT and LXX Nehemiah 11 and 1 Chronicles 9," Text us 20 (2000) 141-68.
B: Evidence
321
implies that the composition contains a version of the biblical book of Psalms,
often differing greatly from !TI+ and 113*. At least the following five units differ
from the known Psalters in the addition of non-canonical fEsalms as well as in the
omission and altered sequence of the canonical psalms, 8 especially in the last
two books of the Psalter (Psalms 90-150): (1) 11QPsa (-+pl. 8*) also reflected in the
more fragmentary 4QPse and 11QPsb; (2) 4QPsa and 4QPsq; (3) 4QPsb; (4) 4QPsd;
(5) 4QPsf (for details on all these, see Flint* and Lange*). Several scholars present
these Psalms scrolls as biblical texts and in their opinion they present a very
different picture of the Psalter ...... Sanders* and Wilson* with regard to llQPsa
and Flint* regarding 11QPsa and the cave 4 scrolls. Like Sanders* and Wilson*,
Flint* suggested that the first part of the collection of psalms was finalized before
the second part, and that the major differences among the various collections of
psalms from Qumran reflect different crystallizations of the biblical book.
According to Sanders*, a comparison of MT and llQPsa shows that alternative
collections of psalms circulated before the 1' 1 century CE, and Flint* expanded this
view to include the cave 4 scrolls. However, the view of other scholars that these
scrolls are liturgical is preferable. 69 The three scrolls of Psalm 119 (below) were
probably also liturgical.
Excerpted and partial Scripture scrolls. A number of scrolls covering only parts
of books were probably meant for personal use. -+ Tov* 2008e:
4QExodd covering Exod 13:15-16 and 15:1, thus omitting the narrative sections 13:17-22 and ch. 14;
4QCanta lacking Cant 4:7-6:11 and 4QCantb lacking Cant 3:6-8, 4:4-7.
The following texts may be liturgical:
4QDeutk1 containing only liturgical sections also found in tefillin;
4QDeutq probably covering only Deuteronomy 32;
4QPsg, 4QPsh, 5QPs (all: Psalm 119).
19. Different Literary Editions ofl-2 Chronicles in \B* and lll+?
L.C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagi11t of I and II Chronicles to the
Masoretic Text, I-II (VTSup 25, 27; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 1.213-6.
\B-2 Chronicles 35-36 contains several synoptic changes vis-a-vis m: 2 Chr

35:19b lacking, 35:19"a-d" 70 (= 2 Kgs 23:24-27) added, 35:20a lacking,
36:2" a-c" ( = 2 Kgs 23:31 b, 32) added, 36:4 different, 36:4" a" ( = 2 Kgs
23:35) added, 36:5"a-d" (= 2 Kgs 24:1-4) added. The added verses relate
to Josiah's reform, while not agreeing with "IB"-2 Kings(= kaige-Th+). In
these cases, 113* may reflect a different Hebrew literary edition.71-+ Allen*
68 For example, 4QPsa and 4QPsq omit Psalm 32, and the former reflects the following
sequence: 38, 71; 4QPsd has the following sequence: 147, 104, while 4QPse has the
sequence 118, 104 and 105, 146.-+ Lange, Handbuch, 583
69 Thus Dahmen*, 313-18 and Tov* 2008e, 36, both with bibliography.
70 The numbering of the added verses follows Rahlfs-Hanhart, Septuaginta.
71 On the other hand, the omission of 1 Chr 1:10-16, 17b-23 is probably due to textual
mishaps (homoioteleuton+), although W. Rudolph, Chronikbiicher (HAT I, 21; Tiibingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1955) 6-7 considers m+a late addition.
322
20. Different Literary Editions of Numbers
and m+?
In
small pluses appear in 2:7, 14, 20, 22, 29 (same plus in all
verses); 3:10; 7:88; 10:6b = 10:6a; 14:23 = Deut 1:39; 23:3b (= 4QNumb) =
23:3a; 23:7 = 24:2; 24:23; 32:30 = context; 36:1 = 27:1. In 9:22-23, has a
shorter text (m+ adds details from vv 21-22; 13:33; 15:35).
The two traditions differ twice in important sequence details. In the
census inch. 1, in the Vorlage of IB*, Gad (m+ vv 24-26) follows Manasseh
(34-35). The position of Gad in ffi+ is less appropriate, after Reuben (2021) and Simeon (22-23), probably influenced by the sequence in 2:10-16
(Reuben, Simeon, Gad). The same change also took place in ch. 26
where Gad was removed from the triad Reuben-Simeon-Gad (vv 5-18) to
vv 24-27, following Issachar.
For the different position of the "Song of the Ark" (Num 10:35-36 m+)
in the two traditions, see 8.72
21. Different Literary Editions ofru and m+,
Lemmelijn, Plagues Narrative.
The editorial interventions by the ru-group in a text like ffi+ render the
text of that group into a new literary edition of the biblical text. Its status
therefore resembles that
in 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel ( 7, 15, 16).
The main editorial changes are in the parallels to Moses' summarizing
speech in Deuteronomy 1-3 and in the editing of Exodus 7-11. ..... p. 80
22. Different Literary Editions of Psalm 151:
11QPsa
H. Debe!, '"The Lord Looks at the Heart' (1 Sam 16,7): 11QPsa 151A-B as a 'Variant Literary
Edition' of Ps 151 LXX," RevQ 23 (2008) 459-73; M. Segal, "The Literary Development of
Psalm 151: A New Look at the Septuagint Version," Textus 21 (2002) 139-58.
The Hebrew Vorlage of

151 and llQPsa col. XXVIII present two
literary (editorial) variants of the same psalm.73 -+Segal* and Debel*.
Possibly,
151 removed David's praise of God from the earlier
version of 11 QPsa because it differed in key points from the depiction of
David in 1 Samuel16 !ll+,
72 Furthermore, I. Kislev, "The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and Literary Criticism: The
Case of Numbers 27, 15-23," Bib 90 (2009) 59-67 suggests that differences in vocabulary
as well as content point to different editorial layers in m+
in Num 27:15-23.
73 Psalm 151
included in this survey since the canonical forms of m+
are equally
determinative for the textual-literary analysis.-+ p. 21
74 See J.A. Sanders, D]D IV, 54-64.
B: Evidence
323
23. An Exegetical Edition of the Torah in 4QRpa-e

E. Tov, "From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?)," in Authoritative Scriptures in
Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popovic; JSJSup 141; Leiden/Boston, 2010) 73-91; M.M. Zahn, "The
Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten
Bible, or None of the Above?" DSD 15 (2008) 314-39 (with much bibliography); ead.,
"Rewritten Scripture" (2010).
The five Scripture manuscripts named 4QRPa-e (4Q158, 364-367) display

solid evidence for the existence of different exegetical editions of the
Torah based on texts like !TI+ and/ or Ul..75 These texts, to be considered as
five different sources, present running biblical texts, while rearranging
some Torah pericopes,76 inserting many small changes, and adding a
number of extensive exegetical additions. The most outstanding
examples are the expanded Song of Miriam 77 in 4QRPc (4Q365) 6aii and
c, the extended list of festivals in 4QRPc (4Q365) 23, and possibly 4QRPa
(4Q158) 14. In these major additions, the 4QRPa-e scrolls resemble the
Hebrew compositions behind the of 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel. -+
7a, 15a-b, 16. For a discussion of the authoritative status of these scrolls,
see specially Zahn* 2010.
24. Minor Literary Differences
Like the large-scale differences between the textual witnesses described

in 1-23, the same type of literary (editorial) differences may also be
detected in small details, both in books in which large-scale differences
have been located (* in Joshua, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) and in
other books. For example,
1 Sam 23:23
m+
(J1:lJ
!:liD
1!711
'n:;,'-,;,1
Look around and learn (in which of all his hiding places
he has bee.n hiding, and return to me when you are certain.)
I will then go with you
Kal. 'l8ETE Kal. yvwTE Kal. rropEua<)1J.E8a 1J.E8' UIJ.WV
Look around and learn and we will go with you.
75 These texts were originally published as nonbiblical texts, 4Q158 as "4QBiblical
Paraphrase" (DJD V) and 4Q364-367 as "4QReworked Pentateuch" (DJD XIII). Until
2009, these texts were not included in lists of biblical manuscripts such as in D]D
XXXIX. For the change in approach, see Tov* 2010. The status of these scrolls as
representing biblical texts is stressed greatly in Lange, Handbuch, 37-43
Zahn* 2008.
76 For example, the Sukkot laws of Num 29:32-30:1 and Deut 16:13-14 are combined in
4QRPb (4Q364) 23a-b i.
77 The seven lines of added text recreated the Song of Miriam, which consists of only one
verse (Exod 15:21) in the canonical text. The new creation is based on that verse and on
the wording of the Song of Moses.
324
The text lacking

indicated by parentheses in m, may have been added in m
at a late stage in the development of Samuel. In this section, Saul gives specific
instructions to find David's hiding places and to report to him.
1 Kgs 16:34 lacking in
+ (MSS boc 2e 2 ):
During his reign, Hie! the Bethelite fortified Jericho. He laid its
foundations at the cost of Abiram his first-born, and set its gates in
place at the cost of Segub his youngest, in accordance with the words
that the LORD had spoken through Joshua son of Nun.
This verse, found in all textual traditions with the exception of
is not
connected to any detail in the context; note the generalized connection by means
of the phrase "during his reign." Moreover, this verse disturbs the continuity: v
34 is preceded by an account of the sins of Ahab (up to v 33) and followed by an
account of the drought (17:1), which comes as a punishment for Ahab's sins. It
appears that v 34 was added by the Dtr+ editor of the book, who wished to
emphasize that Joshua's curse was fulfilled 'like many other prophecies, in
contrast to what is written in Joshua.78 For a similar addition in
6:26, see
p. 297.
Other meaningful differences in small details are found in 4QDeutq in Deut
in 1 Kgs 8:2 (- p. 268).
32:43 (- pp. 249-50) and
C. Evaluation
The evaluation process (-+ ch. 6) is based on the assumption that the
readings were created during the textual transmission and that they
should be evaluated according to the internal logic of that discipline.
However, it appears that the data presented in this chapter were created
at an earlier stage, during the literary growth of the biblical books.
Therefore, textual evaluation should not be applied to them.
As a result, the readings described in this chapter need to be analyzed with
literary criteria that differ from those used in textual criticism. In the analysis of
literary traditions one does not speak in terms of preference. Just as one does not
prefer one stage in the literary development to another, readings described in this
chapter are not preferred to other readings. For example, scholars who
distinguish between the pre-deuteronomistic+ stage and the Dtr editing of the
historical books do not give evaluations such as those that are customary in
textual criticism. In short, in the case of literary (editorial) variants one simply
notes the difference while refraining from textual judgment.
This view pertains to the examples presented in section B and to many more.
BHQ now applies this approach to a series of variants indicated in the apparatus
as "lit." This approach gives promise of a new direction in textual criticism. - ch.
9B1
However, the main problem in applying this notation is the subjectivity in
distinguishing between textual and literary elements. Furthermore, often the data
78 This tradition appears also as a plus to m+ in Josh 6:26
reflecting either a
harmonizing plus
or the original Hebrew text (thus Mazor, "Origin").
325
C: Evaluation
do not comprise a single block of evidence (as in 4a), but rather many details
occurring at different places in the chapter or book. The dispersion of these
elements complicates their recognition as a single tradition block. The common
denominator of these groups of readings is their reflection of a shared feature or
tendency, such as:
The short text of 1\3* in Joshua, 1 Samuel16-1S, Jeremiah, Ezekiel( 1-3, 4a};
Editorial tendencies of l.ll in added segments, mainly in Exodus 7-11 and in
Exodus and Numbers based on Deuteronomy 1-3 ( 21);
Large expansions of 1\3* in 1 Kings, Esther, Daniel( 15-16);
Tendencies in the Song of Hannah and an anti-Hannah tendency in 1
Samuel1-2 in !TI+ ( 4b ..... pp. 254-6};
Chronological differences between the textual sources in Genesis and 1-2
Kings ( 6-7).
These readings should not be treated separately but as a block of readings that
need not be evaluated. However, many scholars single out individual readings
from large complexes, such as analyzed in section B, and submit them to textual
evaluation. Thus, individual readings from the complex of typological details in
the short texts of 1\3* to Jeremiah and Ezekiel are often evaluated (and preferred to
!TI+), while in our view this procedure is irrelevant. The particular instances that
for some reason have been singled out for comment in BHS and in critical
commentaries are typical of the shorter and rearranged editions of Jeremiah and
Ezekiel and therefore need not be evaluated separately.
Table 8
Textual Evaluations of Literary (Editorial) Differences
Jer 27:19 1\3*
BHS
Jer 27:22 1\3*
'?l'1 C'i1 '?l'1
'?11t m1lt:J;.:}'i1
i1::l'::l
For thus says the LORD Iof hosts concerning the columns, the sea,
the stands I
> 1\3*, add cf. 52:17 (..... Table 1 [pp. 2S9-91]}
jcn1lt '1P:l c1 1l' 1w
land there they shall remain, until the day when I give attention to
them}
BHS >*,add (..... Table 1 [p. 2S9-91]}
Jer 29:16-20 * >
BHS 1\3* om 16-20, add; cf. sa (. . . Table 1 [p. 2S9-91])
Ezek 1:11 *
Ci1'ElJ::l1 jCi1'J:l1}
ISuch were their faces.} As for their wings ...
BHS > *, dl (cf se-C) (..... B3)
Ezek 1:27 *
I:J':JO i1'? n:J tD1lt
1'l'::l 1lt"11lt1
I saw a gleam as of amber lwhat looked like a fire encased in
a frame}
BHS >*,add (..... B3)
Ezek 7:6-7 *
f111ti1 :Jtv1' T'?11t li11':J;.:i1 i111t:J 7 i111t:J mil T'?11t f'Pi1} fpi111t:J 11t:J fP
Doom is coming! The hour of doom is coming. Ut stirs against
you, there it comes. 7 Tiu cycle has come around} for you (?), 0
inhabitant of the land:
BHS >*,add (--o B3)
326
Practical implications. Although evaluation forms a necessary part of

the process of textual criticism, the difficulties described above cause a
lack of clarity. For, with regard to many small details such as those
mentioned in B24, it is virtually impossible to ascertain at which stage
they developed. If such readings are editorial, textual evaluation should
be avoided, but if they were created during the scribal transmission,
evaluation is essential. While some will claim that this distinction is
artificial and that scribes behaved as editors at all stages, certainly until
the 3rd century BCE --+ van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, textual and literary
critics cannot allow themselves the luxury of not trying to make a
decision. This lack of clarity creates confusion and could or should cause
scholars to refrain from expressing an opinion on the originality of
readings that possibly need to be evaluat.ed. The recognition of literary
(editorial) variants symbolizes the progress made in modern textual
criticism. However, at the evaluation stage, we often recognize that lack
of clarity necessitates the conclusion that we do not know whether
certain variants should be evaluated. This is a worrying aspect of postmodern textual criticism. --+ pp. 167-9
8
CONJECTURAL EMENDATION
"No part of the theory of textual criticism has suffered more from
misunderstanding than has conjectural emendation." (E.J. Kenney,
"History, Textual Criticism," EncBrit, Macropaedia [15th ed.; Chicago,
1985]20.679).
Y. Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures (AOAT
210; Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984); Barthelemy, Etudes, 365-81; G.R. Driver,
"Hebrew Scrolls," JTS n.s. 2 (1951) 17-30; D.N. Freedman, "Problems of Textual Criticism in
the Book of Hosea," in O'Fiaherty, Critical Study, 55-76; H.L. Ginsberg, "Some Emendations
in Isaiah," JBL 69 (1950) 51--60; Hall, Companion, 150-98; Maas, Textual Criticism, 10-21;
Margolis, "Scope"; J. Reider, "The Present State of Textual Criticism of the Old Testament,"
HUCA 7 (1930) 285-315 (296-307); Sperber, Grammar, 31-104; Y. Zakovitch, "Implied
Synonyms and Antonyms: Textual Criticism vs. the Literary Approach," in Paul, Emanuel
(2003) 833-49.
toofs: Emendations mentioned in the apparatus of BHS can be searched in the
BHS module in Accordance, BibleWorks, Logos, and SESB using key terms such as "cj", "I".
A. Background
Within the framework of the text-critical analysis, scholars compare the

value of readings and often express a preference for a specific reading,
sometimes that found in m and sometimes one in a Qumran scroll, 113, or
another source. This comparison not a form of emendation. A common
misapprehension, even among established scholars, is to consider every
preferred reading found outside m an emendation. 1 At first glance, this
1
For example, the terminology used in NJPS, xix distinguishes between emendations
(considered "preferences" in this book) and conjectural emendations such as described
here. This use of the term "emendation" was used frequently in the 19th and early 20th
centuries, such as by H. Oort, Textus hebraici emendationes quibus in Vetere Testamento
Neerlandice vertendo usi sunt A. Kuenen, I. Hooykaas, W.H. Kosters, H. Oort (Leiden: Brill,
1900). This collection contains all the non-Masoretic readings adopted in the leading
Dutch translation of A. Kuenen et al., Het Oude Testament opnieuw uit den grondtekst
overgezet (Leiden: Brill, 1899). In the 21"t century, this terminology is considered
imprecise, but is still being used often, for example, in the frequent use of "cj"
(conjecture) in HALOT, referring to preferences of readings.
328
terminology would appear to be correct since m is the central text for

Hebrew Scripture, while the other textual witnesses are compared with
it. However, this procedure is a mere convention for the scholarly world.
Accordingly, the procedure that some scholars name "emendation" is
merely the stating of a preference for a non-Masoretic reading.- ch. 5
The term (conjectural) emendation of the biblical text refers to a
different process, i.e., the suggestion of new readings that are not
transmitted in the witnesses of the biblical text. The logic behind this
procedure can be formulated as follows: at the concluding stage of the
textual procedure, one compares all the readings with the intention of
gathering information on the changing biblical text, inter alia, its
presumed original form, as defined on pp. 167-9. If, in a particular
instance, a scholar does not succeed in finding among the extant textual
witnesses a reading that, in his or her opinion, is appropriate to the
context, scholars often turn to an alternative method. One may then
suggest that an as yet unknown reading was contained in the I an original
form of the text. This suggested reading is called a conjectural
emendation (this procedure is often denoted with the Latin term
divinatio). A conjectural emendation is an invented reading from which
all other readings, or at least one of them, presumably developed.
Needless to say, the emendation of the text pertains to all witnesses of
the biblical text and not solely tom.
A proposed emendation is always a reading that is not documented in
the known texts. However, sometimes scholars suggest a reading that,
unbeknownst to them, is actually found or reflected in one of the textual
witnesses. -Table 1. When such a proposed reading is discovered in one
of the ancient sources, it ceases to be an emendation and becomes a
variant reading transmitted in one of the textual sources.
Scholars are aware of the fact that conjectural emendations are
hypothetical, and, therefore, several alternative suggestions are sometimes made for emending the text. -section B. Scholars also realize that
sometimes no emendation is acceptable in the context, at which point
they often merely state that the text is "corrupt" (crux interpretum in
scholarly parlance).
Justification for conjectural emendation comes, first and foremost,
from the recognition of the imperfections of the textual evidence: only a
small fraction of the readings that were created and copied throughout
the many generations of textual transmission are known to us. Many
readings have been lost, among them those that were contained in the
first copies. Since the evidence that has been preserved is coincidental
329
A: Background
from a textual point of view -+ Tov*, "Coincidence," it is permissible to

attempt to arrive at the ancient texts by way of reconstruction.
The extent to which the evidence is random can be illustrated from the
Qumran discoveries. See Table 1. If the Qumran scrolls had not been
discovered, these proposed emendations would have remained mere
emendations. If more ancient texts like those from Qumran are
discovered, the need for suggesting emendations will diminish.
Table 1
Readings in the Qumran Scrolls Previously Suggested as Emendations
Judg 6:3
1'"1) 1"1)1 t:l1p 'J:::l1 P"Ol)1 ]'10 i1"l)1 ( =
([ 5)
Midian, Amalek, and the Kedemites would

come up and they came up against them
-
t:l1p 'J:::l1 [p"Ol11 ]'10 i1"111]
(BHS suggested the deletion of 1'"11 1"111

Isa 33:8
!lt+
1Qlsaa
Isa 49:7
m
1Qlsaa
=D)
he despised cities
he despised witnesses
(= BHS; previously: Duhm, ]esaja, 211)
t:l'!-?
t:l'111
(difficult form)
to one deeply despised
(previously emended by Duhm, ]esaja, 334)
iD::lJ i1T:::l"
iD::lJ '1T:::l"
Emendations relate to a change, omission, or addition of a letter,

word, or even paragraph, 2 including changes in the order and word
division+. The assumption of a gloss+ or interpolation+ not supported by
textual evidence constitutes an additional type of emendation, but this
term is not often used for such textual phenomena ...... pp. 259-61
Some scholars also use the term emendation for details that are not
represented in the written biblical text as it was transmitted in the First
and Second Temple periods, but that were an inseparable accompaniment to it in the form of a .reading tradition as known from m
(vocalization) ...... pp. 39-47. Emendations of the reading tradition of m are
suggested in exactly the same way as emendations of consonants, e.g. Ps
84:7 ...... p. 333. Similar emendations have been suggested in connection
with the syntactic relation between words, against the evidence of the
Masoretic accents and the understanding of the ancient translations.
2
Some scholars suggested that a section or column was sometimes erroneously omitted
or transferred elsewhere. See V.A. Dearing, "A New Explanation for the Discontinuities
in the Text of Isaiah 1-10," in O'Flaherty, in ead., Critical Study, 77-93; A. Roft\ "The
Composition of Deuteronomy 31 in Light of a Conjecture about Inversion in the Order
of Columns in the Biblical Text," SJmaton 3 (Jerusalem, 1978-1979) 59-76 (Heb. with
Eng. summ.).
330
Emendations must be plausible from the point of view of the textual

procedure, 3 but that does not imply that they are actually part of the
textual procedure. Usually, scholars do not consider proposing
emendations until they have reached the stage of evaluating the
combined textual evidence.-+ ch. 6. Suggested emendations are based on
considerations beyond the area of textual criticism, such as biblical
exegesis, linguistic research, literary criticism etc. Conjectural emendation therefore derives from biblical exegesis in the broader sense of the
word and the evaluation of readings as part of the textual procedures .
..... Margolis*, 19
The procedure of emending the biblical text is one of the most
subjective aspects of textual criticism in particular, and of biblical
research in general. Generally speaking, over the course of the past few
centuries, far too many emendations were suggested, and most may now
be considered unnecessary. 4 Most scholars agree that emending the
biblical text should be a last resort when solving textual problems.5
However, there will never be a consensus with regard to what constitutes
a reasonable explanation. A reasonable amount of self-criticism is
required with regard to the limits of our knowledge, especially in the
area of language ...... B2. Similarly, it should be recognized that the
biblical author might have used a word that is less suitable in the context
than one the scholar could suggest by way of emendation ...... p. 169, n. 9
During the 17th and 18th centuries, many conjectural emendations were
proposed by such scholars as Cappellus, Clericus, Houbigant, Glassius,
and Michaelis. 6 At a later stage, these emendations were included in
critical commentaries, particularly those written in German, and also
rarely in modern translations. Selections of such emendations can be
5
6
The emendation needs to be based on textual phenomena that were likely to have
occurred at the time of the textual transmission, such as the interchange of similar
letters+, the omission, addition, or metathesis+ of letters, etc. Consequently,
emendations that presuppose the interchange of graphically or phonologically
dissimilar letters are less plausible.
In the words of A.R. Millard, "In Praise of Ancient Scribes," BA 45 (1982) 143-53 (152),
"The preceding paragraphs suggest that ancient copyists were not likely to be so
careless. If this is true, then textual emendations should become rarities." Likewise,
Zakovitch* 2003 warns against making hasty emendations if an assumed problematic
reading fits the context well when explained with good literary-critical insights.
One should first examine whether a reading exists among the extant texts that would
suit the context.
Cappellus, Critica Sacra (1650); Houbigant, Notae criticae (1777); Glassius, Philoloxia Sacra
(1795); J.D. Michaelis, Deutsche Obersetzunx des A/ten Testaments mit Anmerkunxen fiir
Unxelehrtc (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1773-1786).
A: Background
331
found in Perles, Analekten; Delitzsch, Lese- und Schreibfehler; and in the BH

series.
The three main types of emendations are exemplified below.
B. Types of Emendations
1. Contextual Emendations
The most common type of emendation 7 derives from a specific understanding of the context. Most scholars accept the first three of the
following emendations.
Amos 6:12a
Emendation:
REB
t:l,!i?:;J:;l
(t:1'010
(Can horses gallop on a rock?) Can one plough it with

oxen (or: in the mornings)?
t:l:
(BH; BHS:
Can the sea be ploughed with oxen? (sim. NRSV, NAB)
The two hemistichs+ of v 12a in m are incongruous, while the first hemistich
"Can horses gallop on a rock?" fits well with the context of v 12b: "Yet you have
turned justice into poison weed and the fruit of righteousness to wormwood."
Both sentences describe illogical situations. The exegetical problem is located,
therefore, in the second hemistich of v 12a (above) that describes a predictable
activity. This issue is equally complicated if one understands t:l'!j?:;J:;l as the plural
of
"oxen" (([ 5 D), which is unattested in that form (t:l'li?:;J in 2 Chr 4:3 is
problematic) and as ip:l, "morning." On account of this contextual difficulty,
Michaelis 8 suggested long ago to divide
into two words:
"with
oxen," and c:, "sea," and to change the vocalization of
to
with the
omission of the mater lectionis+. This emendation suits the parallelism and
completes the meaning:
Can horses gallop on a rock? II Can the sea be ploughed with oxen?
The proposed emendation derives from exegetical considerations, and it reflects a
different word division+.
Almost all words for which scholars have suggested emendations are considered
difficult in some way, and they must have been equally difficult for the ancient
translators. When it is evident that the translators were struggling with these words,
their renderings are not mentioned here.
See n. 6, ad loc. For additional analyses and emendations of this verse, see: A. Szab6,
"Textual Problems in Amos and Hosea," VT 25 (1975) 506-7; H.W. Wolff, Joel and Amos
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 284-5; M. Dahood, "Can One Plow without
Oxen? (Amos 6:12): A Study of BA- and 'AL," in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of
Cyrus H. Gordon (ed. G. Rendsburg; New York: Ktav, 1980) 14, 23; A. Cooper, "The
Absurdity of Amos 6:12a," JBL 107 (1988) 725-7; 0. Loretz, "Amos VI 12," VT 39 (1989)
240-41.
332

Ezek 3:12
m+
Isa 11:15
(,o,poo 'i1 ,,::l::>)

iD.!Ji
"Jmc .!JOiDN, mi "JNiDm)
(Then a spirit carried me away, and behind me I heard
a great roaring sound:) "Blessed is (the glory of the
LORD from/in His place.")= \13
Emendation:
(BH, BHS)
As (the glory of the LORD) rose from his place= NRSV
m possibly refers to the reciting or singing of a formula such as i,::l::>
,o,poo 'i1, "Blessed is the Presence of the LORD from I in His place." However, the
meaning of such a formula is contextually unclear, since the text does not state
who is saying these words and there is no introductory formula such as
"saying," which has been added in cr:. Similarly, it is difficult to ascertain the
meaning of,o,poo, "from/in His place," perhaps referring to Heaven (cf. Mic 1:3).
Luzzatto's 9 suggestion to read here
"as <the glory of the LORD> rose," is
plausible. This emendation is supported by the frequent interchange of the
similar letters kaph and mem. 10 - p. 231. Cf. al.so the phrase "but when the glory
of the LORD moved from the cherubs" in Ezek 10:4 and further 10:16, 19.
,mi c:-\):;1 (ii1Ji1
,,.
(He will raise his hand over the Euphrates) with His ?
(NJPS: scorching) wind.
Emendation:
,mi
(BH)
with the might oJHis wind
The meaning of c:-\):;1 in m is not clear (Luzzatto, lsaia, 165: "a word which has no
equivalent and no clear meaning in the other languages"). Some scholars
interpret it as "heat" based on Arabic, while others suggested reading ,mi
"with the might of His wind." 11 This emendation was first proposed by
Gesenius, Thesaurus, 1017 and Luzzatto, lsaia, 165 on the basis of the interchange
of the similar letters yod and ;.;ade in the early Hebrew script. - p. 228
Prov 22:20
mK
(n.!Ji,
"n::ln::>
(Have I not written for you) formerly(?) (with admonition and knowledge?)
mO
or
threefold (?) or: excellent things (?)
Emendation:
(BH, BHS)
thirty <precepts>
9
Luzzatto ad Joe. (see p. 228, n. 55) believes that this interchange occurred in the early
Hebrew script, adducing examples of similar interchanges.
10 According to Geiger, Urschrift, 316-18, the reading of m reflects a tendentious change,
similar to the corrections of the scribes+, meant to avoid the dishonoring of God.
11 Cf. H. Wildberger, fesaja (BK X/1; Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1980) 464.
However, possibly such a reading was already reflected in IB
"with a
strong wind") and 5 (;;mii I!CJinll!Cl, "with the force of His wind") = 0 in fortitudine
this reconstructed variant would make
spiritus sui. If these versions indeed read
an emendation superfluous. By the same token, if the word is interpreted as reflecting a
meaning now lost, it need not be emended. E. Eshel, "Isaiah 11:15: A New
Interpretation Based on the Genesis Apocryphon," DSD 13 (2006) 38-45 explained m as
referring to the Euphrates; this view is further developed by A. Demsky, "B'ym (!sa
11 :15) = (Bit)Bahian: Resolving an Ancient Crux," DSD 16 (2008) 248--52.
B: Types of Emendations
333
Recognizing the difficulties in m, most scholars accept an emendation based on

the Egyptian collection of proverbs by Amen-em-Ope, 30 (" ... See thou these
thirty chapters: they entertain and they instruct."). 12 - BHS. This third collection
of sayings in the book of Proverbs (22:17-24:22) is also heavily influenced in other
details by the contents of the Egyptian composition. The emendation changes the
vocalization+ of the Qere.
For an additional emendation for which partial evidence is available,

see 1 Sam 10:27 ....... pp. 311-13
In particularly difficult verses, several alternative emendations are
suggested: for example, in Judg 18:7 (--+ pp. 338-9) and also in the
following example as recorded in BH, BHS and elsewhere: 13
Hos 4:4
m
Emendations:
FJj
1\.l!il(D)
1\.l!i>D
1\.l!il(D)
":;;l"!9:;l
":;l"!
:::ll
(BH)
(BH)
(BH, BHS)
(BH)
(BHS)
In other verses, emendations have been suggested for almost every

word, as in BH (not BHS) in Ps 84:7:
m
As they go through the valley of Baca they make it a place of springs;
the early rain also covers it with blessings. <Thus NRSV, except for
the last word where NRSV contains an emended text, "pools," that is,
instead of
!11.>
Ps 84:7
Emendations
(m presumably created by haplography+)

d. also I1J Torrov (probably reflecting 1ill9) = 5
(m presumably created by dittography+)
I::?
iln
Two of these emendations pertain only to vocalization:
12 Translation by J.A. Wilson in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed.
J.B. Pritchard; Princeton: University Press, 1950) 424. For further literature on this topic,
see ibid., 421 and S. Ahituv, "Msly, spr msly," EncBib Oerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1968)
5.559--60 (Heb.).
13 See H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea (Hermeneia; 2"d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1974) 70.
334
Several emendations have been proposed on the basis of the parallel

hemistich+ in synonymous or antithetic parallelism.-+ Avishur*, 669-98
Ps 22:16
m+
(mp'-,o p:J10 "J1tv'-,1) //
r:t:> (tv,n::> tv:J) =
My vigor (dries up like a shard II my tongue cleaves

to my palate.)
Emendation:
NAB
":;">r:t (BH, BHS)

my throat (REB, NRSV: mouth)
Assumed textual phenomenon: metathesis+. For the occurrence of 1n and ptv'-, in

parallelism, see Job 6:30; 20:12-13 (reversed sequence).
Ps 49:14
m+
Ci1"5:1:J)
// (10'-, '-,o::> C::>,1 i1T) =
(Such is the way of those who have foolish

confidence) II and after them (?) (they are pleased with
their own talk.)
Emendation:
BHS)
and their paths

The parallel word pair 1,,, "way," and
"path," appears frequently in
Scripture (e.g. Gen 49:17; Ps 25:4, 27:11). Assumed textual phenomenon:
meta thesis+.
Ps 72:9
Emendation:
NAB,NRSV
(1::>n'-, ,::l.l.l
//
(1.l.l,::>" 1"J::l.,)
(Let) desert-dwellers (kneel before him II and his

enemies lick the dust.)
(BHS) or:
(BH, BHS)
foes I his foes
The parallelism
"enemy" II
"foe" is attested frequently, both in Hebrew
Scripture and in Ugaritic texts ...... Avishur*, 344-6. Assumed textual phenomenon: interchange of yod and resh.
Ps 73:1
!H+
(:J:J., .,:J'-,
//
(Truly, <God> is good) to Israel, (God <is good> to

those whose heart is pure.)
Emendation:
REB
(BH, BHS)
(Assuredly) God (is good) to the upright
This emendation is based on the parallel word

"upright" II ,J, "pure"cf. Ps 19:9-and
(both: "God") ...... Avishur*, 683. The emendation suits
the context, since the psalm lacks a national frame of reference. Assumed textual
phenomenon: different conceptions of word division+.
2. Linguistic Emendations
a. Grammar
Many grammatical emendations have been proposed for uncommon
forms that were corrected on the basis of a formal grammatical approach.
335
With an impressive collection of examples, Sperber, Grammar 14 rightly

attacks grammatical emendations of this type, arguing that they are
usually based on "school grammar."
1 Sam 13:6
Emendation:
(1'-,
'::l) 1Ni ('-,NiiD' iD'N1)
(The men [sing.] of Israel) saw [pl.] (that they were in

trouble.)
i1Ni (BH)
saw [sing.]
BH adapts the predicate to the subject. However, with collective nouns the
predicate often occurs in the plural. ..... Sperber, Grammar, 91-2; GeseniusKautzsch, 145
i:n'-, to speak to you
1 Kgs 22:24
m
Emendation:
(BH)
Ezek 2:1
m
Emendation:
i:J1N1
(BH)
BH rather systematically corrects -niN I -ni-t when used with the verbs i:Ji, :J::liD,
and with such nouns as n'i:J to
Sperber, Grammar, 63-5, showed
that these corrections are superfluous.
;"TtDll, iDii,
Ezek 2:6
m
Emendation:
and you sit with/ on scorpions
:JiD1' ;,nN C':::lipll
'-,1'1 (BH)
The editors of BH had a fixed conception of the use of the prepositions '-,N and '-,ll
(taken as "to" /"with" and "on") and often corrected the text accordingly. These
corrections are not necessary ...... Sperber, Grammar, 59-63
Ezek 11:13
Emendation:
'-,NitD' n"iNiD nN ;"TiDll ;,nN
i1":> ;"TW
;"!;"TN
I said," Ah, LORD God! You are wiping out the

remnant of Israel!"
i1":>i:J (BH, BHS)
Will You wipe out?
This emendation, assuming haplography+, changes the sentence to the structure

of a question. 15
Job 20:26
Emendation:
N'-,
,;,'-,::lNn
A fire faiU1ed (masc.) by no man will consume him.

(= BH) or
(BH, BHS) fanned (fern.)
"fire," usually behaves as a feminine noun, but not always, as is shown by the
present verse and Jer 48:45; Ps 104:4. BH emends m to the feminine form also in
14 Most of the emendations mentioned by Sperber are quoted from BH and many
commentaries; it is worth noting that most of them were not repeated in BHS.
15 Thus Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 200; K.-F. Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel, Kapitel1-19 (ATD 22;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) 127, 165. This emendation, together with
others that are similar, is mentioned by H.G. Mitchell, "The Omission of the
Interrogative Particle," in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of W.R. Harper
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908) l.113-9 (117). Most of these emendations,
also mentioned by Gesenius-Kautzsch, 150a, n. 1, were accepted by BH.
336
Jer 48:45. See the Sebirin+ note on Jer 48:45. - p. 59
Note also the following similar corrections.

2 Sam 1:22
Job 1:19
J1tVJ M'-, ]iiJ1i1' ntVp (emendations:

... i1M::I. ;,'-,m mi (emendation:
,,q,r:: BH)
BH)
b. Parallels in Cognate Languages, Especially in Ugaritic

J. Barr, Comparative Philology (1987); id., "Philology and Exegesis: Some General Remarks,
with Illustrations from Job," in Brekelmans, Questions, 39-61, 209-10 (1989); J. Coppens, La
critique du texte hebreu de /'Ancien Testament, Introduction a /'etude historique de /'Ancien
Testament, III (Louvain [n.d.]) = Bib 25 (1944) 28-30; M. Dahood, "The Value of Ugaritic for
Textual Criticism," Bib 40 (1959) 160-70; T.L. Fenton, "Comparative Evidence in Textual
Study: M. Dahood on 2 Sam i 21 and CT A 19 (1 Aqht)," VT 29 (1979) 162-70; H.L. Ginsberg,
"The Ugaritic Texts and Textual Criticism," JBL 62 (1943) 109-15; Goodwin, Text-Restoration,
45-136; L.L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Tex.t of Job: A Study in Methodology (SBLDS
34; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977); S. Segert, "The Ugaritic Texts and the Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible," in N.E. Studies in Honor of W.F. Albright (ed. H. Goedicke;
Baltimore/ London: Johns Hopkins, 1971) 413-20; Talmon, Text,273-94.
While the textual approach (for the term, see Barr 1987*; Grabbe*)
suggests emendations in case of contextual difficulties, the philological or
lexicographical approach(-+ Coppens*) 16 attempts to solve the problem
with evidence from cognate languages. This approach is instigated by the
recognition that our knowledge of the ancient Hebrew language is
limited requiring consultation of cognate languages before suggesting
emendations.
The comparison of Hebrew words with those of cognate languages,
particularly Ugaritic and Phoenician, leads to an avoidance of the need for
emendations. In this sense, the philological approach has but a limited bearing on
the present discussion. However, support from cognate languages yields some
form of emendation, namely, in vocalization although the vocalization is not
changed in all instances. Although this approach may, perhaps, seem to be
marginal for textual criticism, the titles of the studies listed in the bibliography
show that the leading writers in this area consider their discussions to pertain to
that discipline; Dahood even uses the term emendations in connection with his
unusual explanations for words in m on the basis of Ugaritic and Phoenician. 17
Scholars who frequently resort to Ugaritic documents from the second
millennium BCE do so on the assumption that the language of Hebrew Scripture
was close to that of Ugarit. According to this view, the Ugaritic documents
preserve several ancient idioms and linguistic phenomena that were not always
16 Although advocating the philological approach, Barr* 1989 cautioned against an
excessive use of parallels in Semitic languages and the assumption of too many lost
Hebrew meanings.
17 M. Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology (Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici
113; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 71.
337
understood correctly by the persons who copied and vocalized the biblical text in
a later period. From here, it follows (in their opinion) that one must attempt to
delve deeply into the original meaning of Hebrew Scripture by occasionally
ignoring the vocalization of m. This line of approach to the Ugaritic documents
was developed particularly by Ginsberg* 1943, and, in an extreme manner, by
Dahood* both in theoretical studies and in the application of his method to the
biblical books.l8 Dahood's students further developed his approach.l 9
The so-called enclitic mem, added as a suffix to Ugaritic words for emphasis or
stylistic nuance, is one of the central characteristics of Ugaritic that scholars
identified in m, 20 albeit distorted by word division+ and vocalization.
Isa 5:23
"Emendation"
,,,o,
intD :::lp.!.l .!.ltD,
Who vindicate the wicked in return for a bribe and

withhold vindication of the righteous (pl.) from him
+
of the righteous (sing.) = I!J 5 D
The plural C'P'i:,\ disagrees with the singular pronominal suffix of

in m,
leading to the suggestion of Ginsberg* 1950, 54 that
actually represents a
singular form ("the righteous") with the addition of an enclitic mem. Note also
the occurrence of .!.ltD,, "the wicked," in the singular in the parallel hemistich+.
Ps 29:1
"Emendation"
i.!.l1 i1:J:l 'i1', 1:Ji1 //
'i1', 1:Ji1
Ascribe to the LORD, 0 divine beings (literally: 0 sons

of gods}, ascribe to the LORD, glory and strength.
+
18 M. Dahood, "Qoheleth and Northwest Semitic Philology," Bib 43 (1962) 349-65; Proverbs
(see previous note); Psalms, vols. I-III (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1968,
1970); "Northwest Semitic Texts and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible," in
Brekelmans, Questions, 11-37. The numerous suggestions made by Dahood prior to 1967
have been collected in the Hebrew-Ugaritic Index to the Writings of Mitchell]. Dahood (ed.
E.R. Martinez; Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 116; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1967); vol. II (SubBi 4; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981).
19 A.C.M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and job (BibOr 22; Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1969); K.J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1973); W. Kuhnigk, Nordwestsemitische Studien zum Hoseabuch
(BibOr 27; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974); R. Althann, A Philological Analysis of
Jeremiah 4-6 in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr 38; Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1983); W.L. Michel, job in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr 42; Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1987).
20 Hummel, "Enclitic Mem", and before him A.D. Singer, "The 'Final -m' (= rna?) in the
Ugarit Tablets," B]PES 10 (1943) 54-62 (Heb.); M. Pope, "Ugaritic Enclitic -m," ]CS 5
(1951) 123-8. In his Sepher ha-Riqmah (ed. M. Wilensky [Berlin: ha-Academia, 1930; repr.
Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, 1964]235, 360), Ibn Janah already referred to
the superfluous nature of this mem of some words in Scripture. However, he did not
assign to it the same distinctive meaning as modern scholars. For a discussion of the
scholarship on this grammatical feature, see C. Cohen, "Jewish Medieval Commentary
on the Book of Genesis and Modern Biblical Philology. Part I: Gen 1-18," JQR 81 (1990)
1-11 (7-8). The very existence of the enclitic mem in biblical Hebrew has been put in
doubt by ].A. Emerton, "Are There Examples of Enclitic Mem in the Hebrew Bible?" in
Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M.V. Fox et al.; Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 321-38.
338
According to Hummel, "Enclitic Mem," 101, this text refers to "the sons of El,"
seated in the assembly of the gods, as in Ps 89:7; ..... Deut 32:8 on pp. 249-50.
According to this explanation, the original text referred to El, to which an enclitic
mem was added.
Ps 29:6
m
"Emendation"
?:UJ 10::l CITPT1 He makes them skip like a calf

+ ipi'1 He makes skip
C'J'PT1, "He makes them skip" (with the pronominal suffix), was understood by
Ginsberg* 1943, 115 as ipi'1, "He makes skip." The final mem, which the
Masoretes understood as a pronominal suffix, was explained by Ginsberg as an
enclitic mem ...... Barr* 1987,32-3
Another grammatical insight pertains to the use of lamed as a vocative

particle in Ugaritic, 21 a use that was subsequently identified in several
biblical texts.
Ps 140:7
ffi+
mnn ?1p 'i1

'i1'?
I said to the LORD: "You are my God; give ear, 0
to my plea for mercy."
LORD,
Also explained as 22
I said: "0 LORD, You are my God; give ear, 0
my plea for mercy."
LORD,
to
A similar approach was developed towards vocabulary. The first of the

following examples is based on Ethiopic and Arabic.
Prov 30:17
m
rv)
"Emendation"
(the eye that mocks a father and disdains) the

homage due to a mother
njP;:r'? (or: nj?Q'()
the old age of a mother
According to D.W. Thomas, 23 liiJ)it? in m should be emended to -nj?(');:t?* or np;:t?*

(metathesis+). i1J?(');:t?* is not documented in Hebrew, but its assumed meaning
"old age" is posited on the basis of the cognate root lhq in Ethiopic, "to be old,"
and Arabic, "to be white," pertaining inter alia to hair. In the opinion of D. W.
Thomas, this reading was in the mind of the
translator
An
alternative emendation,
also based
(([ 5), is mentioned by BH and BHS.
Judg 18:7
Emendations:
i::li
With no ? anything that is in the land.
-?:;,
lack of anything (BH)
one who imprisons
21 See A.D. Singer, "The Vocative in Ugaritic," JCS 2 (1948) 1-10.

22 SeeM. Dahood, "Vocative Lamedh in the Psalter," VT 16 (1966) 299-311 (309); id., Psalms
Ill (101-150) (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970) 302.
23 D.W. Thomas, "A Note on
in Proverbs XXX.17," JTS 42 (1941) 154.
24 A similar meaning was attributed by D.W. Thomas and others to 1 Sam 19:20
me
cnt:;Jl
--+ Barr* 1987, 25
339
Different understanding of m:
With no one speaking a word on the earth.
cannot be explained according to the usual meaning of the root in the Bible
("puts to shame"), giving rise to various emendations. The emendation
is
i::l1 "::l i10nr:ll:ltV
("there is no lack of anything that is in
based on v 10
the earth"), whereas another emendation,
"one who imprisons," is possibly
based on graphic similarity. On the other hand, Barr* 1987, 14-15, while rejecting
the proposed emendations, suggests explaining the word from another meaning
of the root c"',::l. In his view, this root, or a homonymous one, once meant "to
speak" as it does in Arabic and as was rightly understood by
A.aA.fiam.
2 Kgs 4:42
(',r:li::l1 l:l'il'tV en', l:l'itvl' l:l'i1::l::lt:Jn', ...
(and he brought ... bread of the first fruits, twenty

loaves of barley bread, and some fresh grain) <in> its
ripeness (?)
Emendation:
(some fresh grain) on the stalk
Different understanding of m: (some fresh grain), green wheat
Before the discovery of the Ugaritic corpus, scholars understood
as a noun
with the addition of the preposition -::l, and the meaning of the word was
usually taken to be "sack" or "bag" in accordance with the cognate Arabic root
and the context. At the same time, an emendation
was proposed (....:.Barr*
1987, 26). However, on the basis of one of the Ugaritic tablets, Aqhat 19:62 (KTU
1.19, II 13), it is generally accepted that the bet actually belongs to the root of a
word
"ripening stalk" or "(green) wheat," and consequently m need not be
emended. 25
3. Emendations for Metrical Reasons

Eissfeldt, Introduction, 57-64; Goodwin, Text-Restoration, 137-54; Kittel, Notwendigkeit, 67-76;
Kugel, Biblical Poetry; E. Sievers, Metrische Studien I: Studien zur hebriiischen Metrik (Abh. der
phil.-hist. Cl. der Kgl. Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wiss. XXI, 1-2; Leipzig: Teubner, 1901).
Several scholars developed theories on accentuation, the length and

number of hemistichs+, syllable count, the existence of strophes and
refrains, rhythm, and meter (a fixed number of long and short vowels or
in biblical poetry.26 These theories, in
stressed and unstressed
25 For a discussion, see M. Cogan & H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, 1988) 59.
26 See the reviews of these theories in Eissfeldt*; Kugel*, 287-304, and the additional
literature mentioned there, p. 292, n. 17; Gray, Hebrew Poetry (1915) 201-4; E. Konig,
"'Metrum' als Mittel der Textkritik in der althebraischen Poesie," JBL 46 (1927) 331-43;
D.N. Freedman, "Prolegomenon" (1972) to Gray, Hebrew Poetry, xli-lii; M. O'Connor,
Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980); D.N. Freedman, Pottery,
Poetry and Prophecy, Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1980); W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Tech11iques QSOTSup 26;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984); A. Berlin, The Dy11amics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1985).
340
their turn, served as a basis for emendations metri causa, "for metrical
reasons," that is, emendations of details in the text that did not accord
with the scholar's metrical or poetical understanding.2 7 Most scholars
regard emendations of this type as untenable. Some examples follow:
Gen 49:2
!ll+
C::l"::lN
UJOtD1 II ::lpll" "J::l
1:0:::lp;"!
Assemble and /istl'n, 0 sons of Jacob II listen to Israel
your father.
Emendation:
C::l"::lN
1.!JOtD1
II ::lpv "J::l
1:0:::lp;"!
Assemble, 0 sons of Jacob II listen to Israel your

father.
This emendation by Sievers*, 367, 404, and BH is based on the supposed
appearance of an identical number of units in both hemistichs+ (3:3) and on the
avoidance of the repetition of the word "listen."
Gen 49:7
!ll+
Emendation:
;"!rltvp
"::l Cni::lll1
II T.!J
_:_
"::l C!:lN i1iN
Cursed be their anger so fierce, II and their wrath so

relentless.
;"![n]tvp "::l cm::lv i11,,N, II rv "::l C!:lN i1iN
Cursed be their anger so fierce, II and cursed be their
wrath so relentless.
This emendation (addition of a word) by Sievers*, 406, based on the assumption

that both hemistichs should be identical (4:4), led him to repeat the word
"cursed," for which cf. also Deut 28:16.
Exod 15:2
"::lN
II ?.i?JN?
;"IT
This is my God whom I glorify II the God of my

father whom I exalt.
Reconstruction:
::lN
II
This is my God whom I exalt II the God of my father

whom I glorify.
The reconstruction of the ancient form of the song by Cross-Freedman, Studies,
55 included the inversion of 1;"!1JN1, "whom I glorify," and 1;"!JOOiN1, "whom I
exalt," since these scholars were of the opinion that "as m stands, the second
colon is considerably longer than the first." The emendation was meant to correct
the presumably unusual poetical form: "The simplest solution to this metrical
imbalance is to interchange the verbs; this produces the desired symmetry."
27 The general argument for such emendations, the logic of which is borrowed from the
study of Greek and Latin poetry, is frequently used when relating to one of the abovementioned elements of the poetical structure, and not necessarily when relating to
meter alone.
9
SCHOLARLY AND NON-SCHOLARLY EDITIONS
"Criticism apart from interpretation does not exist; and 'critical
edition' is the most inappropriate of all names for the thing to which
custom applies it, an edition in which the editor is allowed to fling his
opinions in the reader's face without being called to account and
asked for his reasons." (A.E. Housman, introduction to M. Manilius,
Astronornicon [London: Grant Richards, 1903] l.xxxiii).
Cohen, "Introduction"; Goshen-Gottstein, "Editions" (1992); B. Hall, "Biblical Scholarship: .
Editions and Commentaries," in The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the
Reformation to the Present Day (ed. S.L. Greenslade; Cambridge I New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1963) 38-93; B.M. Metzger & B.D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament,
Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed.; New York/Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005); D.C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 191-223; Roberts, "Hebrew Bible"; Tov,
"Place" (2002); M.L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and
Latin Texts (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973).
A. Background
One of the main dilemmas when preparing a printed edition of HebrewAramaic Scripture is the choice of which form(s) or manuscript(s) to use
as the base of that edition. In many cases, the manuscript background of
an edition is unclear, including editions that present m. Another problem
lies in the fact that editions of lll do not represent the complete spectrum
of the witnesses of the Hebrew Bible. After all, the "biblical text" is an
abstract unit that is not found in any one single source, but rather in the
totality of the ancient witnesses. -+ ch. 2. The non-Masoretic witnesses are
usually disregarded in the text of the editions, in contrast to the practice
followed in virtually all NT editions.1 These NT editions present an
eclectic+ system 2 and are constantly updated to conform to the changing
1
2
A few editions are based on single sources:-+ Parker*, 194-6; Metzger-Ehrman*, 222-6.
Epp, Perspectives contains several studies on the eclectic practice in NT textual criticism.
The first published edition of the NT by Erasmus (1469-1536) in 1516 became the base
for all subsequent editions until the end of the 18th century, when the first "modern"
editions were prepared. Erasmus' text, composed eclectically from several late
342
views of leading textual critics. 3 This practice has the blessing of NT

scholars and the general public alike. True, there is less divergence
among the various NT sources than that seen among the witnesses of
Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, but they still differ in many small details. As
a result, all Nestle-Aland editions differ from one another in major and
minor details. The eclectic principle guiding the editions of the NT and
several other literatures has been accepted only in a very small group of
Hebrew-Aramaic eclectic+ editions - B3, while the majority of the
Scripture editions represent a single source, m.
Distinction between scholarly and non-scholarly editions. Since all editions present
m in some way or another, we turn now to the nature of these editions. When
focusing on m, a modern editor has several options when presenting that text.
The editor has to decide whether the main component in the edition is tradition
(the creation of a non-scholarly edition continuing in the line of RB2+) or
adherence to scholarly principles. The distinction between non-scholarly and
scholarly editions is not very clear and is not synonymous with the distinction
between precise and imprecise editions. Editions are named "scholarly" if they
represent a single manuscript or add an apparatus of variants to the text, 4 or
follow both procedures. However, scholarly editions can be imprecise, and nonscholarly editions can in some ways be very precise. Scholarly editions are also
named "critical" because of the addition of a critical apparatus+, but diplomatic+
editions (based on single manuscripts, mainly L+ and A+) that lack such an
apparatus also follow scholarly principles.
The leading editorial principles behind an edition determine its nature. Most
editions are non-scholarly since they adhere to tradition, representing RB2+ or
improving upon it. None of these traditional editions adhere to scholarly
principles in the selection of the content since, from the first printed editions
onward, they have not indicated the manuscript source of the readings chosen.
Any edition that faithfully represents a single source, mainly codex L+ or A+, is
considered scholarly since its diplomatic text is a good representation of the BenAsher+ tradition that came to be central within Judaism. Accordingly, the Dotan
editions are scholarly even though they do not contain an apparatus of variants.
-+ Adi 1973 and Dotan 2001.5 Another precise edition is Cohen, Miqra 'at Gedolot
minuscules, was idiosyncratic and sometimes erroneous, but nevertheless came to be

accepted as the "textus receptus." -+ Metzger-Ehrman*, 137-64; D.A. Carson, The King
James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker Book House, 1980) 337; J.L.H. Kraus, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New
Testament, Ph.D. diss., Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2004.
The leading editions in 2011 are Nestle-Aiand, Novum Testamentum graece (ed. E. Nestle,
E. Nestle, K. Aland, B. Aland, et al.; 27'h ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993);
The Greek New Testament (ed. B. Aland, K. Aland, et al.; 4'h ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft I United Bible Societies, 2001 ).
Such an apparatus reflects the view that serious involvement in biblical studies needs to
be based on a variety of Hebrew-Aramaic source texts and the ancient translations that
often reflect a text differing from the "central" Scripture text of m.
Editions for which no bibliographical details are provided in this chapter are listed on
pp. xx-xxii above.
A: Background
343
since it represents the text of codex A, although it reflects the conception of RB2
on which it improves. On the other hand, the editions of Breuer and the
Jerusalem Crown fall somewhere between the non-scholarly and scholarly
editions ...... p. 73, n. 117
In an appendix to this chapter we review a special type of edition,

viz., modern translations presenting an often-unrecognized edition of
Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture.
Printed editions may continue a tradition followed in the manuscripts
on which they are based, or they may create a new text by combining the
contents of several or many manuscripts. Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture
editions continued the trend of presenting m as "the Bible." This situation
was to be expected as the first editions were prepared by Jews or
converted Jews and m was their only text. -+ pp. 70-72
Upon comparison, it is clear that the printed editions present the
witnesses of the biblical text in antiquity in a very limited way that does
not represent the textual variety that characterized the early periods. -+
pp. 186-7. The scholarly editions that contain a critical apparatus+
represent an acceptable attempt to correct this situation, but remain far
from providing a comprehensive picture of the diversity of the ancient
evidence. The further our textual horizon extends beyond m, the better
will be our awareness of this textual diversity and, as a result, the better
will be our research facilities.
Extant Scripture editions may be classified as follows:
(a) m only: all non-scholarly (traditional) editions as well as some
diplomatic+ editions of single manuscripts.-+ pp. 70-74
(b)
m + variants and conjectural emendations+ in a critical apparatus+:
the BH series and the HUB.-+ Bl-2

(c) m + variants and conjectural emendations+ in the text: eclectic+
editions. -+ B3
This chapter focuses on the different forms of complete HebrewAramaic Scripture editions, while it is realized that there exist additional
Scripture editions.6
Editions of the fragmentary biblical Judean Desert scrolls and lll.-+ pp. 78, 99. Editions
of \B 0 5 are considered Scripture for other communities.-+ p. 21
344
Table 1
Sources of the Main Scripture Editions

This table mentions the textual basis of the major Scripture editions. A "*" sign
indicates the presence of information on the base text in the title page or the
Introduction.
1. Different sources
Complutensian Polyglot (1514-1517)-+ p. 71, n. 104

Walton, Polyglotta (1657)
and all other Polyglot editions ..... p. 71
RB1
RB2
(Miqra'ot cedolot 1516-1517) ..... p. 72, n. 108

(Miqra 'at Gedolot 1524-1525) ..... p. 72, n. 109
2. RB2, directly or indirectly

Kennicott 1776-1780 and all early editions prior to that of Letteris 1852
Letteris 1852
Ginsburg*1894-1937
BH* 1'1 and 2"d ed. 1906, 1909-1913
Sinai 1949: RB2?
Koren 1962
Breuer, Tanach Yisrael, '-,l(iiD' l"Jn (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Neuman, 1962) = id.,
c:nn;:, J:l'l('::lJ i1im (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Neuman, 1965): RB2?
3. Codex L, with some changes
BH* 3rd ed. 1929-1937

Adi*
BHS* 1967-1977: see Prolegomena, XII-XIX
Dotan 2001 *=revision of Adi* (-+ibid., pp. 1229-37)
NJPS* (2"d ed., 1999-+ pp. xii-xiii);-+ p. xlv above
BHQ* 2004-: see Schenker, "General Introduction," XVIII-XX
4. Codex A
Breuer, 1977-1982*: codex A, Tiberian manuscripts, and other sources;-+
Introductions to the three volumes and p. 74, n. 118 above
Breuer, Horev* 1997 and the l(ipo n.l.li commentary series (Jerusalem: Rav Kook
Inst., 1970-1989): codex A, Tiberian manuscripts, and other sources; see
the appendix to Horev* 1997, pp. [3]-[65]listing deviations from codex A
Cohen, Miqra 'at Gedolot "Haketer"* 1992-2007: codex A and related manuscripts
in the sections not preserved for A; see id., "Introduction," 69-71. Also:
Tokhnit "HaKeter"-Ma 'agar HaTanakh

HUB*: codex A with very few changes and with supplements from Lin the
sections not preserved for A: see Introduction, Isaiah, xx-xxi; Jeremiah,
xiv-xv; Ezekiel, xv-xvii
Jerusalem Crown* 2000
.5. Different sources
Cassuto ("Jerusalem Bible")* 1953: "Ben Asher"-+ p. 73, n. 115
Snaith 1958:-+ p. 74, n. 119
Tanach Simanim*: codex A supplemented by L
A: Background
345
The hundreds of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture editions of the first two

groups are more or less identical, since they reflect a form of m, but they
differ in many large and small details. Yet, in spite of these differences,
all these sources are known as "the Bible." The reader can easily conceive
of all these editions as "the Bible" (Scripture), since in group (b) on p. 343
the major discrepancies in content are provided in an apparatus and not
in the text itself.
Editorial conceptions. Behind most editions is an editor (rarely: editors)
who determined its parameters. Usually, the name of such an editor is
mentioned on the title page, but sometimes the editor acts behind the
scenes, in which case the edition is known by the name of the printer or
place of appearance. The differences among the editions pertain to the
following areas:
1. The base text, sometimes involving a combination of sources, and, in one
case, different presentations of the same manuscript (codex L is presented with
slight differences in different editions; -+ Table 1). The major decision for an
editor pertains to the choice of the base text, which could be a single manuscript,
a group of manuscripts, or the adherence to "tradition," which implies following
RB2 in some way or another.
Differences between the editions pertain to words, letters, vocalization+,
accentuation+, and Masoretic+ notes among which are the Ketib-Qere+ variations.
The latter are significant, while the other differences between the editions usually
are less significant. Equally important are. differences in verse division (and
accordingly in the numbering of verses). Differences between eclectic+ editions
are by definition substantial.-+ B3. In addition to these variations, most editions
also introduced a number of mistakes and printing errors.-+ pp. 8-9
2. The text presentation, partly reflecting manuscript evidence: the layout of the
text in either prose or poetry (in the BH series often against codex L), the
sequence of the books, chapter division+, and the open and closed sections+.
-+ pp. 3-7
3. Editorial principles pertaining to major decisions as well as small details in
the text: the inclusion of the traditional Jewish commentators, ancient and
modern translations, and a critical apparatus+ in scholarly editions. Editorial
principles are also reflected in liberties taken by making small changes in the
base text(s). Some of these conceptions are closely related to the intended
readership (confessional/scholarly). The major decision for an editor pertains to
the choice of base text. -+above 1. Most of these decisions also have to be made
for the efectronic ebitions+.
The principle of accepting a base text of any type is considered conservative
when compared with eclectic+ editions based on an unlimited number of textual
sources and conjectural emendations+ ( B3). With most Hebrew-Aramaic
editions being either Jewish or scholarly, one's first intuition would be to assume
that the difference between these two categories would be that the former adhere
to tradition, and the latter to scholarly principles, among them the diplomatic+
representation of a single source. However, not only Jewish editions but also
several scholarly editions (among them the first two editions of BH) follow RB2,
346
while several modern Israeli editions are based on a single codex: the two
editions by Dotan based on codex L (Adi 1973 and Dotan 2001 ), and several
editions based directly or indirectly on codex A.-+ Table 1
As a result of these divergences, there are no two editions that agree in all
their details. Subsequent printings of most editions differ from their earlier
printings (which sometimes amount to different editions), without informing the
reader of the details. This pertains to editions such as Ginsburg, Letteris, Koren,
Adi, BH, BHS. Photographically rf'produced editions present identical texts,
while editions based on the same erectronic text are almost identical except for
small details that reflect their editors' conceptions. Such computerized versions
of Hebrew Scripture, usually accompanied by a morphological analysis of all the
text words, are based on codex L, A, or BHS, based in turn on L. - p. 24
Modern translations differ from one another in some of the parameters
mentioned above and many more. These translations usually follow m with or
without a selection of readings from other sources. For an analysis, see the
appendix to this chapter.
Development of Editorial Conceptions? Editorial concepts have changed

over the course of the centuries. The following approaches are presented
more or less in chronological sequence. 8
a. No Exact Indication of the Source. Virtually all Jewish editions of HebrewAramaic Scripture, with the exception of eclectic+ editions, are directly or
indirectly based on manuscripts of m, more precisely TMT (the Tiberian m). As
the Masoretic manuscripts differed from one another, the very first editors and
printers decided on the text base of their editions. The perception that an edition
should be based on a single manuscript, preferably the oldest or best one, had not
yet developed, nor had the understanding that the choice of readings from
several manuscripts requires the indication of the source of each reading. When
the first editions were prepared, they were based on a number of unnamed
relatively late Masoretic manuscripts, and their source(s) were not indicated. -+
pp. 70-71
b. Adherence to the Second Rabbinic Bible (RB2 ). Because of the inclusion of the
Masorah, Targumim, and the traditional Jewish commentaries in RB2, that
edition was hailed as the Jewish edition of Hebrew Scripture. Consequently, most
subsequent editions, with the exception of a few scholarly editions issued in the
second half of the 20 1h century, reflect this edition. Adherence to RB2 thus became
a leading principle in Scripture editions.- p. 72
c. Adherence to the Ben-Asher Tradition. Since the Tiberian branch of the Ben
Asher+ system of m became the determinative text in Jewish tradition, adherence
to the Ben Asher tradition also became a leading principle in Scripture editions.pp. 72-4
7
The principles of the various editions are sometimes mentioned in a foreword referred
to by a "*" sign in Table 1. Ofer, "Preparation," 90, n. 6 reviews some of these
forewords, and remarks on the lack of others.
These approaches cannot be separated strictly from each other; for example, editors
may adhere to the Ben Asher+ tradition and at the same time may prefer a single
manuscript.
A: Background
347
d. Representation of a Single Manuscript. The search for the best Ben-Asher

manuscript (principle c) involved the choice of a single manuscript rather than a
combination of sources. This principle reflects one of the leading ideas in
Editionstechnik, namely the production of a diplomatic+ edition of a single
manuscript, not "improved" by readings from other sources. In the 20th century,
diplomatic editions became the leading principle for Hebrew Scripture, as in the
case of some of the editions of w., lfi, 5, and <!:. The presentation of a single
manuscript (preferably the best manuscript) rather than a combination of
manuscripts is considered to bring precision to the edition.-+ pp. 78, 135, 148-52
e. Addition of a Critical Apparatus. The search for an exact representation of a
single source (in this case: a Ben-Asher codex unicus) often went together with the
presentation of a critical apparatus+ containing inner-Masoretic and other variant
readings. The first such edition was that of Ginsburg (-+ p. 73), which presents
variants from manuscripts and printed editions of m as well as some versional
evidence. The editorial technique was improved in the BH series and the HUB
edition. However, the addition of a critical apparatus+ and the choice of a single
manuscript are not necessarily connected, as codex L in Dotan's editions (Adi
1973 and Dotan 2001) is not accompanied by such an apparatus.
These critical apparatuses became the centerpiece of the scholarly editions
since they gave the reader the impression that one has insight into the most
important variants. This is true for the HUB and BHQ, both of which present a
good choice of the known variants, but not for BH and BHS. At the same time,
one of the drawbacks of this system is the fact that, however good these
apparatuses are, the very structure of the edition of m perpetuated its centrality-+
B4, stressed by the presentation of the Masorah of L or A in the HUB and the BH
series.
A critical apparatus provides a choice of variant readings that, together with
the main text, should enable the reader to make maximum use of the textual data.
Naturally, the critical apparatus provides only a selection of readings, and if this
selection was performed judiciously as in BHQ and the HUB, the apparatus
provides a reasonable tool. However, the selection of variants in BH and BHS
leaves much to be desired.
f. Eclectic Editions. A system has been devised to move the fragmented and
often confusing information of a critical apparatus+ to the text itself in an
eclectic+ edition. -+ B3
B. Scholarly Editions
A scholar who wishes to examine the textual data regarding Scripture
will find it difficult to gather the relevant data from the many textual
witnesses, since the material is scattered in numerous publications.
Furthermore, not everyone is proficient in all the languages of the ancient
translations, nor does everyone have sufficient experience and
knowledge to be able to evaluate the evidence. Therefore, both scholar
and student alike appreciate the guidance in locating the evidence and in
evaluating the extent of its relevance to the word, verse, and chapter
348
under discussion. For this reason, the relevant textual evidence has been
collected in several monographs devoted to text-critical issues as well as
in commentaries on the biblical books, especially in the commentary
series ICC, BK, and Hermeneia. There are a number of individual
commentaries within as well as beyond these series that devote
particular attention to textual criticism. 9 At the same time, much of the
text-critical data can be found in a more concentrated and convenient
form in the scholarly editions of the Bible.
Three groups of scholarly editions cover Hebrew Scripture as a
whole, 10 namely, the BH series, the HUB, and eclectic editions. The
added dimensions of these three groups of editions, discussed in 1-3
below, are recognizable in two areas:
The text chosen as the basis for the edition. Most scholarly editions do not
choose as their base text the traditional text (the "textus receptus"), viz., RB2+, 11
which is represented in one form or another in most editions, since its textual
basis (probably a group of manuscripts) is unclear. Instead, they present one
According to the sequence of the biblical books: A. Dillmann, Die Genesis (KeH; 5'h ed.;
Leipzig: Hirzel, 1886); G.J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1896); A. Dillmann, Die Biicher Numeri, Deuteronomium und fosua (Leipzig:
Hirzel, 1886); G.A. Cooke, The Book of Joshua in the Revised Version with Introduction and
Notes (CB; Cambridge: University Press, 1918); Burney, fudges; Thenius, BUcher Samuels;
Wellhausen, BUcher Samuelis; S.R. Driver, Samuel; A. Fernandez Truyols, I Sam. 1-15,
cr(tica textual (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1917); McCarter, 1-11 Samuel; Burney,
Kings; J.A. Montgomery, Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951); van der Kooij,
Textzeugen; P. Volz, Studien zum Text des Jeremia (BWANT 25; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920);
McKane, Jeremiah; Cornill, Ezechiel; G.A. Cooke, Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1936); Zimmerli, Ezechiel (1969) = id., Ezekiel (1979, 1983); J. Taylor, The Massoretic Text
and the Ancient Versions of the Book of Micah (London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate,
1891); J. Lachmann, Das Buch Habakkuk: Eine textkritische Studie (Aussig: Selbstverlag des
Verfassers, 1932); S. Zandstra, The Witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta and Septuagint to the
Text of Zephaniah (Contributions to Oriental History and Philology IV; New York:
Columbia University Press, 1909); F. Wutz, Die Psalmen, Textkritische Untersuchung
(Munich: Kosel & Pustet, 1925); M. Scott, Textual Discoveries in Proverbs, Psalms, and
Isaiah (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1927); G. Beer, Der Text des
Buches Hiob (Marburg: Elwert, 1897); M.Th. Houtsma, Textkritische Studien zum A/ten
Testament, 1: Das Buch Hiob (Leiden: Brill, 1925); G. Richter, Textstudien zum Buche Hiob
(BWANT 3.7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927); E. Dhorme, fob (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1926;
repr. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1984); J.A. Montgomery, Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark,
1927); J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1994); B. Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Lund:
Gleerup, 1963); J.A. Bewer, Der Text des Buches Ezra 1 (FRLANT n.s. 14; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922); H. Gotthard, Der Text des Buches Nehemia (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1958). For additional bibliographical references, see: Konig, Einleitung,
.133. On all the Scripture books, see Davidson, Hebrew Text; Barthelemy, Interim Report;
and id., Critique textuelle, 1982, 1986, 1992.
10 Ulrich, BQS (2010) contains a partial edition covering all the Qumran biblical
manuscripts together with a listing of the major variations, without evaluation.
11 The first two editions of BH, based on RB2, are an exception ...... Table 1 (p. 344)
B: Scholarly Editions
349
particular source that, in the view of the editors, best reflects the intricacies of the
Scripture text. By necessity, this involves the vocalized text of m as presented in
the central Masoretic tradition, namely the Tiberian vocalization according to the
Ben Asher+ system. When translated to the reality of single manuscripts, this
principle is reflected in the editions as the presentation of codex L for the BH
series and the Aleppo+ codex for the HUB. While codex A indeed presents the
most accurate representation of this system of vocalization -+ pp. 44-5, it is not
complete. L is the most complete source that is closest to the Ben Asher system.
In contradistinction to the choice of a single manuscript, eclectic+ editions
compose a new manuscript base. -+ 3
A critical apparatus+ that contains variants found in ancient and medieval
Hebrew manuscripts and in the ancient versions. In addition, the BH series and
eclectic editions also contain conjectural emendations+. The principle behind the
addition of a critical apparatus is that the base text (codex L or A), together with
the details of the apparatus, provides good insight into the totality of the textual
evidence available. The quality of the edition is determined by the judicious
choice of these details; the better the quality of the edition, the greater the insight
gained into the ancient evidence by its users.
Usually, no arguments are given for the inclusion or non-inclusion of details
in the apparatus, but the commentary in BHQ provides some background for the
textual decisions. As Housman, quoted on p. 341, rightly states, the user of
critical editions has the benefit of being familiar with the editors' text-critical
decisions, even though he often would like to know the arguments behind them.
One of the forerunners of the scholarly editions is Ginsburg's 1926

edition of m (p. xxi). This edition includes a critical apparatus containing
a good collection of variants from manuscripts, printed Hebrew editions,
and the ancient versions. Because of all these sets of data, this edition
may be considered a scholarly edition; however, its base text is not a
single manuscript, but the RB2 edition that lacked scholarly precision;
furthermore, the quotations from the ancient versions, always in Hebrew
retroversion, are imprecise. Another forerunner of the scholarly editions
is the series of eclectic text editions by Haupt, Critical Edition (1893-1904)
and its English sequel, Haupt, Polychrome Bible. -+ p. 362. This series
provided a full-fledged
edition, often significantly altering the
text and the sequence of the text units. R. Kittel, the initiator of the first
serious scholarly edition, BH, stated explicitly (1901) that his new project
was born in reaction to Haupt's edition that, by combining textual data
and literary principles and applying to them an unreasonable number of
emendations+, changed the text radically ...... p. 362. Kittel's own intention
was to present to students a "critically purged edition of the Hebrew text
of the Bible," centered on m and not drastically diverging from it in its
350
text-critical choices in the first two editions of BH. 12 BH and BHS contain
virtually no introductory statements about the procedures used, while
most of the introductory remarks are devoted to the presentation of m.
On the other hand, the commentary of BHQ describes in detail the
selection of variants and the annotations in the apparatus.
1. The Biblia Hebraica Series

Deist, Text, 87-96 (1981); id., Witnesses, 72-83 (1988); Goshen-Gottstein, "Editions," 228-33;
Kittel, Notwendigkeit; E. Levine, Technica Biblia Hebraica (A Hebrew Guide to Biblia Hebraica)
(Heb.; Haifa: Arbel, 1977); C. McCarthy, "What's New in BHQ? Reflections on BHQ
Deuteronomy," PIBA 30 (2007) 54-69; D. Marcus, "How BHQ Differs from BHS in the Book
of Ezra-Nehemiah," in Safer Mah!r (2006) 169-76; H.M. Orlinsky, "The Textual Criticism of
the Old Testament," in Essays in Honor of W.F. Albright, 140-69 <review of BH>; T.C. Romer
& J.-D. Macchi, Guide de Ia Bible hebrai"que: La critique textuelle dans Ia Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994); H.P. Ruger, An English Key to the Latin Words
and Abbreviations and the Symbols of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: German Bible
Society, 1981); Sanders, "HUB and BHQ"; W.R. Scott, A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical
Apparatus, Masora, Accents, Unusual Letters & Other Markings (Berkeley, CA: Bibal, 1987; 2"d
ed., 1990); Sperber, Grammar, 46-104 <detailed review of the system of the BH series>; E.
Tov, "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia," Shnaton 4 (Heb.; 1980) 172-80; id., "Hebrew Scripture
Editions" (2008); G.E. Wei!, "La nouvelle edition de Ia Massorah (BHK IV) et l'histoire de Ia
Massorah," VTSup 9 (1963) 266-84; id., Massorah Gedolah ... Leningrad (1971); Wonneberger,
Understanding BHS; id., Leitfaden zur Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1984); R.D. Weis, "Biblia Hebraica Quinta and the Making of Critical Editions of
the Hebrew Bible," TC 7 (2002): http://purl.org/TC; Wtirthwein, Text; id., "Jeremiah" (2006);
I. Yeivin, "The New Edition of the Biblia Hebraica: Its Text and Massorah," Textus 7 (1969)
114-23 <review of BHS>; M.A. Zipor, Guide for the Use of the Biblia Hebraica (Heb.; RamatGan: Gal-Esh, 1991).
E:fectronic toofs: The apparatus of BHS can be searched in modules in Accordance, BibleWorks,
Logos, and SESB. That of BHQ can be searched in SESB 2 and 3.
The most widely used-and at this stage the only complete-scholarly

Scripture edition is the Biblia Hebraica (BH) 13 series.- plate 27*. Revised
versions are the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) - plate 28* and Biblia
Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). - plate 29*. In a detailed description of the
12 Kittel, Notwendigkeit, 2-,3, 34. For an earlier Vorarbeit by another scholar, see G.B. de
Rossi, Compendia di critica sacra dei difetti e delle emendazioni del Sacro Testo e piano d'una
nuova edizione (Parma: Stamperia Imperiale, 1811).
13 Within the BH series itself, the name Biblia Hebraica is used in two ways, as a sing. fern.
form ("Hebrew Bible") in the 3'd edition of BH (pp. XVII, XX), and as neuter plural form
("Hebrew books") in the preface to the 2"d edition of BH (1909-1913) and on the title
page of BHS, the 4'h edition in the BH series (note the form "Stuttgartensia," not
"Stuttgartensis"). In modern parlance, the name is usually taken as a singular fern.
form, "the Hebrew Bible." See Fischer, Text, 60, n. 52. Biblia Hebraica is also the name of
several editions that preceded the BH series, such as that of Doderlein (p. 37).
B1: The Biblia Hebraica Series
351
theoretical background of the new scholarly edition, 14 Kittel* suggested

the system of recording variants in an apparatus (p. 77). Since this edition
was born out of criticism of the radical changes in the series of Haupt,
Critical Edition (1893-1904), the changes of m suggested by the BH series
should be considered very moderate. However, in the public mind this
series is conceived of as daring since Haupt's edition is usually ignored.
The following editions have appeared to date:
First edition (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906), based on RB2+ (the "textus receptus")
and edited by R. Kittel-all editions of BH up to 1951 were called BHK after the
first editor.
Second edition (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909-1913), as above.

Third edition (Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1929-1937) edited
by R. Kittel & P. Kahle; a subsequent version of this edition (misleadingly named
the "seventh") was published in Stuttgart, 1951.15 At the instigation of Kahle,
from the third edition onwards all editions in the BH series are based on codex L.
The first revised edition, BHS, considered the fourth edition in the BH series,
introduced significant improvements, but included a smaller range of variants
than BH: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. W. Rudolph & K. Elliger; Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967-1977; last printing to date: 1997).
In the various versions of the third edition of BH, the evidence is divided into
two apparatuses: a first apparatus including "less important" evidence and a

second apparatus containing "more important" data. The less important data are
merely recorded, while the more important ones are also evaluated, although
sometimes the distinction between the two apparatuses is not strictly adhered to.
In the 1951 version of the 3rd edition, a third apparatus containing details from
some Qumran scrolls was added. BHS and BHQ, on the other hand, combine all
the evidence into one apparatus, as in the first two editions of BH.
The second revised edition of BH, considered the fifth edition in the BH series,
is BHQ = Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. A. Schenker; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004- ). 16 Like the third and fourth editions in the BH series, BHQ is based
14 In his reconstruction of the original text of Scripture, Kittel*, 76 stressed the position of
m as being far more central than that of the ancient versions, and accordingly he went
into great detail in describing the intricacies of that version (pp. 47-67). He devoted
much attention to the vocalization and accentuation, areas in which the expertise of P.
Kahle would later prove to be very useful. He went to great lengths (pp. 78-84) to make
the point that the accents should be included and he described in great detail the
reconstruction of the metrical structure of biblical poetry (pp. 67-76) ...... pp. 339-40
15 For the confusing numbering of the editions, see p. XXXIX and the title page: editionem
tertiam denuo elaboratam ad finem perduxerunt, editionem septimam auxerunt et emendaverunt
A. Alt et 0. Eissfe/dt. The term "seventh edition," probably referring to the 7'h version of
the third edition, is misleading, as BHS is considered to be the fourth edition and BHQ
the fifth.
16 The following parts have appeared to date: Part 5: Deuteronomium (ed. C. McCarthy,
2007); Part 13: The Twelve Minor ProphftS (ed. A. Gelston, 2010); Part 17: Proverbs (ed. J.
de Waard, 2008); Part 18: General Introduction and Megilloth (ed. P.B. Dirksen et al., 2004);
Part 20: Ezra and Nehemiah (ed. D. Marcus, 2006).
352
on L, reproducing its mistakes, such as listed by Dotan 2001, 1229-37 and

McCarthy*, 55.
BH and BHS share the following features:17

a. The subjective choice of variants from the textual witnesses and a selection of
conjectural emendations+ that have been proposed over the generations.
b. An evaluation of some variants and some conjectural emendations+. Many
variants and emendations are presented together with the editor's suggestion,
e.g. l(ege), "read!"; dl = delendum, "delete!"; ins(ere), "insert!"; and pr(aemitte),
"place before!" By means of this terminology, the editors indicate to the reader
that m ought to be changed in a certain direction.
c. The biblical text presented in the BH series from the third edition onwards is
that of L, while other aspects, such as its layout as either poetry or prose, reflect
the views of the editors. Thus, more than any other modern edition, the BH series
presents segments as poetry, such as the song of .Lamech (Gen 4:23-24). 18- p. 5
The following innovations beyond BH are found in BHS:

d. The combination of the three apparatuses ("unimportant" and "important"
variants, Qumran scrolls) into one.
e. An extensive recording of material from the Mp+ (presented in the external
margins of the printed text of L) and Mm+. The first two editions of BH did not
have any Masorah, while the third one had the Mp. The contents of the Mm in
BHS are referred to briefly in an apparatus of numbers referring to lists presented
in an accompanying volume by Wei!* 1971.- p
f. A more elaborate listing of the evidence from the Cairo Genizah+ and the
Qumran scrolls, albeit without precise indication of the sources. 19 - q, bb
g. A general symbol (without details) indicating differences between m and
the ancient translations in certain grammatical categories, such as "om suff<ix>" (2
Sam 22:28). The rationale for these indications, first introduced in the HUB - p.
358, is that the text-critical value of the phenomena so indicated cannot be
determined.- s
h. Details included from the ancient translations are presented with greater
precision. 20
17 The systems employed in these editions are not described in the introductions and have
to be inferred from the apparatuses themselves.
18 In this regard, the BH series was preceded by Haupt, Critical Edition (- p. 362); see, for
example, the poetry section Jer 9:20-21 surrounded by prose verses in the latter edition.
19 The variants from 4QDeutq (e.g. Deut 32:43) are listed in general as IQ, and so are those
of llQPsa cols. I-IV (e.g. Ps 145:5), but variants from the other columns are not
included. 1Qisa 3 and 1Qisab are distinguished, while 4QSam 3 and 4QSamb are not (see,
for example, the quotations from 4QSam 3 in 1 Sam 1 and those from 4QSamb in 1 Sam
14, all indicated as IQ).
20 While BH quotes a preferred reading from m Ezek 44:28 ;"l'?nJ'? t::;"l'? ;"1rm1 as: prbl I c D
i'l'?nJ t:l;"l'? ;"1';"1i1
BHS is more careful by quoting D in Latin, joined by a reconstruction:
For similar examples of BH
crrp? D non erit autem eis hereditas = ;"l'?nJ t::;"l'? ;"l';"li"l
compared with BHS, seePs 4:3; 10:8; 101:5.
B1: The Biblia Hebraica Series
353
i. Greater caution was taken with regard to conjectural emendations+. The large
number of such emendations in BH (- pp. 334-6) has been much reduced in BHS.
j. BHS inserted a new type of notation for I!J*, albeit very inconsistently,
signifying the original form (OG+) of that translation, e.g. in Jer 25:38; 30:18. This
notation introduced an element of precision to the recording when the later
manuscripts of llJ corrected that translation towards !11.
The system of recording in the critical apparatus of BH-BHS and the

symbols used in the edition are explained in detail by Levine* 1977,
Deist* 1981, Ruger* 1981, Wonneberger* 1981, Scott* 1987, Wiirthwein*
1988, Zipor* 1991, and Romer-Macchi* 1994. The main abbreviations and
frequently used words, including those in BHQ, are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Abbreviations and Signs Frequently Used in BH-BHS-BHQ
ad
add
al
alloc
c
cet
cast
cf
cj
cod(d)
conjec
crrp
dl
dub
Ed(d)
et
frt
gloss
hab
init
ins
interv
ita
I
leg
mg
m(u)It
m(tr) c(s)
nann
om
pass
additum, addit, addunt

alii, -ae, -a, etc.
aliis Jocis
cum
ceteri
cum asterisco
confer
conjunge, -it, etc.
codex, codices
conjectura
corruptum
dele(ndum)
dubium
editio(nes)
fortasse
glossa(tum), etc.
habet, -ent
initium, -ii, etc.
insere, -it
intervallum
lege(ndum)
legit, -unt
marginalis, in margine
multi, -ae, -a, etc.
metri causa
nonnulli, etc.
omittit, -unt
passim
to, at
add(s), an addition
others
in other places (in the Bible)
with (on the basis of)
the others
marked with an asterisk
confer
conjunction
conjectural emendation+
corrupt
delete!
dubious
edition(s)
and
possibly
gloss, "marginal reading"
has, have
begin
insert!, inserts
interval, blank space
between words or verses
so, thus
read!
read(s)
margin
many
for metrical reasons
some
omission
in many places
354
p(au)c
pl(ur)
pr(aem)
pauci, etc.
plures, pluralis
praemittit, unt, -e
prim man
pr(o)b
prp(on)
prps
rei
prima manu
probabiliter
proponit, -unt
propositum, -o, etc.
reliqui
s (sq, seq)
sec
semel
sim(il)
s(in)g
ss (sqq)
super
tr(an)sp
v,vv
v(r)b
vrs(s)
vid
+
>
*
sequens
secundum
similiter
singularis
sequentes
transpone(ndum), it, -unt
versus
verbum, -a, etc.
versiones
vide(n)tur
a few
many, plural
place(s) before, place
before!
the first hand (of a MS)
probably
propose(s)
proposed
the remaining ones (the
rest)
the following
according to
once
similarly
singular
the following ones
over, above
transpose!, transpose
verse(s)
word(s), verb
version(s)
apparently
add(s)
is lacking
reconstructed form:
a. Hebrew word* = reconstructed word;
b. Ms* = 1st hand of MS before correction;
c. 1\J* =original reading (QG+);
d. Hexaplaric readings, e.g. a'* =reconstructed reading of a'.
Evaluation ofBHS
BHS improved much on BH in method, but several aspects remain
problematic. Many criticisms have been voiced against BHS on account
of its inappropriate selection of variants, its lack of accuracy and
consistency, and the insufficient attention given to the Qumran scrolls(Tov* 1980, 2008 and Deist*):
k. Every collection of variants presents a choice, but BHS often presents fewer
data than BH,21 filling up the apparatus with medieval variants from the
Kennicott collection (1776-1780) and the Cairo Genizah+ that are less significant
for the analysis of the biblical text in antiquity, e.g. in Joshua, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2
Kings, Jeremiah, and Esther. ..... I, o, w and pp. 38-9
1. In spite of the criticisms voiced against the earlier BH, the number of
medieval Hebrew manuscripts attesting to a certain variant is still taken into
21 For example, in Isaiah, BHS has 54% fewer notes than BH, and in Joshua that edition has
29% less. On the other hand, BHS has more notes in Deuteronomy and Samuel.
Bl: The Biblia Hebraica Series
355
consideration in BHS in such notations as "pc Mss," "nonn Mss," "mit Mss." -.
e.g. 1 Samuel 8-9 and above p. 38
m. Inconsistency in approach among the various books is visible almost
everywhere. 22
n. Versional data are often presented as if unconnected to suggestions for
changes to m by BHS, and therefore appear to be conjectural emendations+ to
those who are not conversant with the ancient languages. 23
o. BHS contains far fewer variants from the Qumran scrolls than may be
expected from an edition published in 1967-1977.
BHQ
BHQ substantially improves upon BHS. -. Schenker, "General Introduction." BHQ, richer in data and more judicious and cautious than its
predecessors, presents the following innovations:
p. Masorah magna. The Mm is provided in full, immediately below the printed
text, in contrast to an apparatus of numbers appearing in BHS.-. e
q. The ]udean Desert texts are covered in full with the exception of purely
orthographical and linguistic variants. 24 -. bb
r. As the principle chosen for the inclusion of details in the apparatus, Schenker,
"General Introduction," XIII chose all details that are "text-critically significant"
and details that are "potentially significant for translation or exegesis."-. bb
s. Formulaic explanations. The apparatus contains a long series of formulaic
explanations of the background of the versional deviations from m, explained as
inner-translational features rather than underlying variants. 25-. cc
t. Ancient versions. The evidence is fuller than in BHS. Secondary versions
made from \13 such as VV are quoted only when they differ from the oc+.
v. Textual and literary criticism. BHQ heralds a major change in approach
towards textual data that, according to the editors, should be evaluated with
22 Note the lack of evaluations and conjectural emendations in the apparatus of Samuel in
contrast to the policy of BHS elsewhere. In Deuteronomy, the apparatus provides much
more detailed information regarding the manuscripts of than elsewhere even though
the textual transmission of in that book is no more complex than in other books.
23 This misleading system resulted frofn the overly cautious approach of the editors of
BHS, who preferred not to make a direct link between the text of a version and a
Hebrew reading reconstructed from that version, as in BH:
Jer 13:12 lTI
lx,NitD' 'ii'-,N ii1;"!' it:IN ;"T:lb a;"Ttii i::l1;"! !"IN C;"T''-,Na
BH
a-a I c ;"Tt;"T Cllii '-,N , b-b > , dl
BHS
a-a+ b-b * TTpo<; TOV >..aov TOVTOV, I ;"It;"! Cll;"! "N
In this and many similar situations, BHS presents the preferred reading (l[ege]) as if it
were a conjectural emendation+, since that reading is not linked with.-. ee
24 BHQ can be used profitably as a source of information for the content variants of the
scrolls. At the same time, deviations in the scrolls from m in sense division+ are not
covered. _. Schenker, "General Introduction," XIV. Thus in Cant 3:8 and 4:3, the closed
and open sections in BHQ are not matched by notes about different data in 4QCanta.
25 For example, 5 ;"!'-, l"lit:IN1 ("and she said to him") in Ruth 3:14 form it:IN'1 ("and he said")
in m is explained in the apparatus as "assim-ctext" (assimilation to words in the
context).
356
lit(erary) rather than textual tools since they involve data that may reflect literary
editions or layers of a biblical book different from m...... ch. 7. BHQ merely
mentions the data without adding a textual judgment ...... dd
w. Medieval manuscripts. Following the study of Goshen-Gottstein, "Biblical
Manuscripts," BHQ records 8 early Masoretic manuscripts listed in Schenker,
"General Introduction," XX-XXV ...... I
x. Textual commentary. BHQ adds a detailed textual commentary in which
difficult readings and conjectural emendations+ are discussed.
y. Consen1ative approach to evaluations. Textual evaluations in BHQ are
conservative when compared with earlier editions in the BH series.26
z. Cautious retroversions. The apparatus contains a rather full presentation of
the textual evidence that is at variance with m (L), presented in BHQ and BHS in
Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin ...... ee. While retroversions into Hebrew are
thus reduced to a minimum, other types of retroversions are nevertheless found
in the apparatus, since they are regarded differently in BHQ.27
aa. User-friendly edition? BHQ is richer in data, involving complex notations
that almost necessarily render this edition less user-friendly for the non-expert. .....
cc
Evaluation ofBHQ28
bb. Abundance of information about the Judean Desert Scrolls . ..... q. The reader is
overwhelmed with many secondary readings, such as mistakes. For the readers'
convenience, such readings should be recorded or indicated separately.
cc. Formulaic notations. The principles behind this system, some of which were
adopted from the HUB (thus Weis* 2002, 16), improve the edition, but make it
less user-friendly ...... s
dd. Textual and literary criticism . ..... v. The separation of textual and literary
elements ("lit") in BHQ is a distinct improvement. ..... Weis, "Jeremiah" (2006).
However, it is hard to know whether this system ought to be applied to all details
in literary layers such as analyzed in ch. 7B, with the exception of variants
created during the scribal transmission.
ee. Cautious evaluation. BHQ presents reconstructed variants from the versions
more cautiously than in the past, but stops short of making a direct link between
a reconstructed reading preferred by that edition and the text of the version. The
26 Thus, in Canticles, while BHS prefers 32 variants to m, BHQ makes only three such
suggestions (phrased as "pref") in Cant 4:12; 7:7, 10. This applies also to Ruth and
Lamentations.
27 (i) Versional readings that present a shorter text than m are presented as ">" or
"abbrev ." For example, Esth 1:20 l('ii ii:::li :;, > G GAT (abbr).
(ii) Etymological renderings based on Hebrew forms ("via ... ") that are reconstructed in
the edition, are not considered retroversions in BHQ. For example, the rendering of
in Cant 3:6 is explained in the apparatus as
in Aquila and LaEP as we;"via
28 . For details, see my "Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis," in HB, GB, and
Qumran (2008) 247-70 (257-63); "The Principles behind Modem Editions of Hebrew
Scripture," in The New Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to 600 C. E. (ed.
J.N.B. Carleton Paget & J.L.W. Schaper; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),
forthcoming.
Bl: The Biblia Hebraica Series
357
reconstruction (mentioned first) and the versional reading are linked by the
reference "see," which leaves room for much uncertainty and does not reflect the
real relation between the two elements. 29 ..... z
ff. BHQ includes variant biblical quotations in the NT, Qumran literature, and
other early sources, but only when not accompanied by other evidence (Schenker, "General Introduction," XIV). The non-inclusion of this material in other
cases, together with the omission of the Samaritan reading tradition as recorded
in Tal-Florentin, Samaritan Version, leaves out important blocks of information.
gg. Inclusion of details in the apparatus. The principle of including any variation
that is "potentially significant for translation or exegesis" (..... r) involves the
recording of many "insignificant" variations from the versions and the Qumran
scrolls that distract from the major purpose of the apparatus.
2. The Hebrew University Bible

Goshen-Gottstein, "Editions," 233-40; A. van der Kooij, "The Hebrew University Bible: The
Book of Ezekiel," DSD 13 (2006) 367-71; J. Lust, "The Book of Ezekiel," in Mo'ed, Annual for
Jewish Studies 15 (2005) 54-8; Sanders, "HUB and BHQ"; Tov, "Hebrew Scripture Editions."
Volumes published to date: Goshen-Gottstein, HUB, Isaiah; Rabin-Talmon-Tov, HUB, Jeremiah;

Goshen-Gottstein-Talmon, HUB, Ezekiel. The system of the HUB was introduced by
Goshen-Gottstein, Sample Edition (1965).
For the Hebrew University Bible (HUB) " ... the reconstruction of an Urtext
is not the supreme goal of a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible." 30
-+plate 30*. Compared with the BH series, it is an editio critica major since
the HUB is much more comprehensive although it lacks the textual
commentary accompanying BHQ.
The system of the HUB differs in several important respects from that
of the BH series, in which all the evidence is brought together in a single
apparatus. In the HUB, the evidence is subdivided into four apparatuses
reflecting different periods in the textual transmission. The editors state
that app. III reflects only "processes of scribal transmission," while
"apparatuses I and II also contain variants of other types, such as
29 In the introductory "Figure 1" (p. LXXIII), BHQ notes:
Jer 23:17 m ;""11;""1'
<to men who despise me (they say:) 'The LORD has said.'>
ll) TOtS"
arrw8oU[J.E VOl S"
TOV
>..oyov Kup[ou
<to those who despise the word of the LORD>

pref ;""11;""1'
see G (S)
In this and many similar situations, BHQ presents the preferred reading almost as a
conjectural emendation+, since the reference to 11} (phrased as "see") does not explicitly
state that the preferred reading is actually based on 11}.
30 Ezekiel*, xi; thus already Goshen-Gottstein, Sample Edition, 12. Since the Ezekiel volume
presents the most recently published volume, we quote mainly from the introduction to
that volume, and not from the earlier ones. These volumes, published by the Hebrew
University Bible Project (HUBP), are introduced by extensive introductions.
358
readings deriving from possibly divergent textual traditions and

synonymous readings" (Ezekiel*, xiii). Altogether, these apparatuses
illustrate "a period of almost 2000 years," from the oldest Qumran scrolls
to RB2+ (Ezekiel*, xiv).
The HUB editions are characterized by the following features:
a. The HUB divides the evidence into four separate apparatuses together with
an apparatus of notes:
The ancient translations l1J 0 ([ 5, presented in this sequence.
II. Hebrew texts from the Second Temple period: rabbinic literature and
the Judean Desert texts.
III. A selection of medieval sources: codices of m (Kennicott+ 30, 89, 93, 96,
150 ..... Ezekiel*, xiv and plate 23* below), fragments from the Cairo
Genizah+, and variants embedded in medieval commentaries.
IV. A selection of medieval codices contqining differences in orthography,
vocalization, and accents, areas not covered by app. III. One of the
purposes of the recording in app. IV is to collect information about
"non-Tiberian traditions and Tiberian non-receptus and later manuscripts
that differ in certain details" (Ezekiel*, xli).
V. An apparatus of notes commenting mainly on app. I. In this apparatus,
the apparent deviations of the ancient versions from m are briefly
commented upon (e.g. "exeg," "parall," "condens"). Brief explanations
describe the status of the versional evidence or m (e.g. "dupl," "gloss").
I.
b. The HUB does not contain conjectural emendations+ because it merely

documents the transmitted textual witnesses.
c. The HUB does not take a position on the comparative value of readings. This
principle is considered to be an advantage by some and a disadvantage by
others. 31
d. In certain grammatical categories, the HUB does not take a position
concerning the text-critical value of deviations from min the ancient translations
because it believes that no judgment can ever be reached in them. 32 Deviations in
these categories are indicated with minimal designations, such as num(erus) for
interchanges of singular I pi ural, and per( son) for differences in person in verbal
forms, etc. ..... Tov, TCU, 154-62
e. The HUB is the first edition to systematically record biblical quotations in
the rabbinic literature and variants from the Cairo Genizah+ (from the period
preceding 1000).
f. The HUB contains the best listing of differences in section divisions (indicated
as "") in the medieval manuscripts and Qumran scrolls, recorded in app. II and
III. In addition, it lists the details of the section divisions used in the ancient
31 Elements of evaluation cannot be completely excluded because the decision to include
or exclude a reading involves value judgment; a reading viewed as an orthographical,
secondary variant and excluded from notation by one scholar, may be considered a
superior reading by another. Besides, in some cases, the HUB employs value judgments
anyway.-+ m
32 This system, innovated by M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, also influenced BHS-BHQ and the
OHB.
B2: Hebrew University Bible
359
sources (open/ closed sections) in an appendix to the introduction (Ezekiel*, xlixlxi).

g. HUB is the first edition to systematically distinguish between the reconstructed original text of dJ (indicated as \13-) 33 and presumably later variants
(indicated as dJvar)
Evaluation of the HUB

The HUB is an excellent research tool, but it is incomplete.
h. The division of the material into different apparatuses is helpful and
conducive to further research. Cross-references between the apparatuses provide
links between the different types of data, for example, between a reading in an
ancient version and a Qumran manuscript. However, the division of these
apparatuses based on chronological principles is sometimes problematical. 34
j. The combination in app. II of the variants from the rabbinic writings and the
Judean Desert scrolls is problematical because of the different character and time
period of the two groups.35
k. User-friendly edition. Like BHQ, the HUB is often not user-friendly for the
non-expert.-+ aa above
I. Most relevant evidence is covered, but at the same time the edition focuses
on Jewish and rabbinic sources. This focus is not matched by an equal amount of
attention to biblical quotations in early Christian sources, intertestamental
literature, and Samaritan sources ...... BHQ, !f. However, Ezekiel, the third
volume published, does cover the non-biblical Qumran writings.
m. Value judgments. In general, the HUB does not provide value judgments on
readings, but nevertheless sometimes it does against its system.36
3. Eclectic Editions
Crawford-Joosten-Ulrich, OHB (2008); R. Hendel, "A New Edition of the Hebrew Bible," in
The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. One, Scripture and the Scrolls (ed. J.H. Charlesworth;
Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006) 149-65; id., "Samuel" (2007); id., "Prologue"
(2008); Hognesius, 2 Chronicles 1-16; K. Lachmann, Kleinere Schriften (ed. J. Vahlen; Berlin:
33 Represented by the printed text and apparatus of the Gottingen editions+ of \13.
34 For example, 0 ([ 5, included in app. I, are later than most of the material in app. II.
Further, the existence of a variant in app. II (mainly the Qumran scrolls) often forms the
basis for the reconstruction of a reading in \13 that is recorded in the notes.
35 The Judean Desert scrolls are closer to the ancient versions than to rabbinic literature.
Likewise, the biblical variants in the rabbinic literature belong together with the
medieval manuscripts in app. III since both groups reflect !TI+.
36 The short text of \13 in Ezekiel may or may not reflect an earlier literary stratum, but at
least that option should be left open. -+ ch. 783. If the longer text of !TI+ is named a
doublet as in the HUB, or if \13 is described as having been condensed, the option of \13
reflecting an early short literary layer is no longer possible. For example,
Ezek 5:11 m
\13 EV TTaat Toi:saov + note:
"H p dupl., vid app 7:20". Similarly 5:15; 6:6, 13 (2 x); 7:20.
360
G. Reimer, 1876) 250-72; Timpanaro, Genesis; Tov, "Hebrew Scripture Editions" (2008); id.,
"Eclectic Text Editions of Hebrew Scripture," in 'Go Out and Study the Land' (fudges 18:2):
Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed. A. Maeir et al.;
JSJSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2011), forthcoming; H.G.M. Williamson, "Do We Need A New
Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible," Bib 90 (2009) 153-75.
Following the assumption of an original text of Hebrew Scripture ..... ch.

3B, that text was reconstructed in some "eclectic" editions before
diplomatic editions were devised ...... p. 361, n. 39. In addition, in the
course of the critical investigation of Hebrew Scripture, it was often felt
that the combination of a diplomatic+ base text (codex L or A) and a
critical apparatus does not suffice for the judicious use of the textual
data. Consultation of m alone is not satisfactory since it is merely one of
many biblical texts. It is also recognized that the use of an apparatus Is
cumbersome as it involves a complicated mental exercise in the course of
which often no decision is reached. The apparatus necessitates the
placement of the variants in imaginary (virtual) boxes that in the user's
mind may replace readings of m. Since each scholar evaluates the data
differently, everyone creates in his/her mind a different reconstructed
(original) text. In other words, the user of the BH series constantly works
with two sets of data, a real edition (m) that is in front of the user and a
virtual one, which is composed eclectically from the apparatus and is
different with every user.
Against this background, it is not surprising that a system has been
devised to move the fragmented and often confusing information of the
critical apparatus to the text itself in an eclectic+ edition. 37 With this new
tool, it is no longer necessary to replace in one's mind a detail of mwith a
variant reading found in the apparatus, as the readings that are preferred
by the editors are incorporated into the running text.
Thus, in !TI+ in Gen 1:9, the command "let the water under the heaven be
gathered into one place, so that dry land may appear" is followed by an
abbreviated account of its implementation "and so it was." However, in the
eclectic edition of Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 120-21, the implementation of the
command is included in the text itself ("and the water under the heaven was
gathered into one place, and dry land appeared") on the basis of textual evidence
in 4QGenk and . Some scholars may consider this addition to m+ a harmonizing
plus, but Hendel considers this a primary reading that formed part of the original
text and therefore places it in the reconstructed text. An edition of this type
provides a very convenient way of using the textual data together with an
expert's evaluation. This procedure is the main one followed in the study of
31 The editors of the OHB call these editions "critical," (e.g. the subtitle of Hendel, Genesis
1-11 is "Textual Studies and Critical Edition"), but that term is problematic since the
alternative editions are also named critical.
B3: Eclectic Editions
361
classical texts and in the NT,3 8 and also has much to recommend it for Hebrew
Scripture editions. As a result, a rather sizeable number of eclectic editions of
biblical books or parts thereof have been published since the 1890s,39 starting
with Cornill's edition of Ezekiel in 1886. 40 Lachmann*'s method of creating
eclectic editions and determining the relations between manuscripts ..... Timpanaro*, applied to classical texts, Germanic literature, and the NT, were very
influential also in the development of eclectic editions of Hebrew Scripture.
Shortly after the appearance of these eclectic editions, a different type of critical
edition was created, viz., the first editions in the BH series in which the critical
notes were included in the apparatus and not in the text. ..... 1. The eclectic
editions probably influenced scholarship less than the BH series and the HUB,
38 See n. 2 and the many editions of Greek and Latin Classical texts published by Oxford
University Press and Teubner of Leipzig. West*, 94 describes only this procedure for
classical texts, and mentions the diplomatic editorial technique only with relation to the
first editions of papyri.
39 The following monographs (arranged chronologically) present a partial or complete
reconstruction in Hebrew of (parts of) Scripture books: Cornill, Ezechiel; G. Bickell, Das
Buch job nach Anleitung der Strophik und der Septuaginta auf seine ursprUngliche Form
zurUckgefUhrt und in Versmasse des Urtextes Ubersetzt (Vienna: Carl Gerold's Sohn, 1894);
J. Meinhold, Die ]esajaerziihlungen ]esaja 36-39 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1898); N. Peters, Beitriige zur Text- und Literarkritik sowie zur Erkliirung der BUcher Samuel
(Freiburg i. Breisgau: Herder, 1899) 58--62 <1 Sam 16:1-19:18>; C.H. Cornill, Die
metrischen Stucke des Buches Jeremia (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901); F. Giesebrecht, Jeremias
Metrik am Texte dargestel/t (Gi:ittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905); D.H. Muller,
Komposition und Strophenbau (Alte und Neue Beitrage, XIV Jahresbericht der Isr.-Theol.
Lehranstalt in Wien; Vienna, 1907); P. Haupt, "Critical Notes on Esther," Old Testament
and Semitic Studies in Memory of W.R. Harper (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1908) 11.194-204; J. Begrich, Der Psalm des Hiskia (FRLANT 25; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1926); C.C. Torrey, "The Archetype of Psalms 14 and 53," ]BL 46 (1927)
186-92; K. Budde, "Psalm 14 und 53," ]BL 47 (1928) 160-83; P. Ruben, Recensio und
Restitutio (London: Probsthain, 1936); F.X. Wutz, Systematische Wege von der Septuaginta
zum hebriiischen Urtext (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1937); W.F. Albright, "The Psalm of
Habakkuk," in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H.H. Rowley; Edinburgh: Clark,
1950) 1-18; Cross-Freedman, Studies <select passages>; F.M. Cross, "The Song of
Miriam," ]NES 14 (1955) 237-50; id., "A Royal Song of Thanksgiving II Samuel 22 =
Psalm 18," ]BL 72 (1953) 15-34; L.A.F. Le Mat, Textual Criticism and Exegesis of Psalm
XXXVI, A Contribution to the Study of the Hebrew Book of Psalms (Studia Theol. RhenoTraiectina 3; Utrecht: v /h Kemink & Zoon, 1957); M. Naor, "Exodus 1-15, A
Reconstruction," in Sefer S. Yeivin (ed. S. Abramsky; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1970) 24282 (Heb.); P.O. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 46-86
<passages from Isaiah 57-64>; B. Mazar, "hgbwrym 'sr ldwyd," 'oz ldwd Oerusalem:
Kiryat Sefer, 1964) 248--67 = Canaan and Israel (Heb.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1974)
183-207 <1 Sam 23 //1 Chr 11>; A. Gelston, "Isaiah 52:13-53:12: An Eclectic Text and a
Supplementary Note on the Hebrew Manuscript Kennicott 96," ]SS 35 (1990) 187-211;
Hognesius, 2 Chronicles 1-16 (2003) <cf. my review in SEA 68 (2003) 208-13> ...... p. 366
(Appendix) and the earlier study of Kennicott, Dissertation (1753), Part the First compares
I CHRON. XI with 2 SAM. V and XXIII <eclectic text provided in translation>
40 I do not know when the first eclectic edition of Hebrew Scripture or part thereof was
produced; the first one known to me is Cornill, Ezechiel. That edition is based on sound,
mature scholarship and therefore it would be hard to imagine that earlier editions did
not precede it.
362
but their influence should not be underestimated because of the inclusion of

eclectic translations in scholarly commentaries and modern Bible editions (see the
appendix).
A major exponent of the eclectic approach is the Critical Edition series edited
by Haupt (1893-1904) and its English sequel, Haupt, Polychrome Bible (1897-1899),
both incomplete. These editions are radical in their approach since they freely
change the sequence of chapters and verses according to the editor's literary
insights. 41
Eclectic editions of select chapters and books have been produced since the
last decennia of the 19th century, in modern times especially in Italian
scholarship. 42 Plans for a complete Scripture edition are underway in 2011,
incorporated in the so-called Oxford Hebrew Bible (OHB), introduced by the
programmatic introduction of Hendel* 2008. 43
System of the Eclectic Editions

The eclectic editions produced in the 19th and 20th centuries provided very little
theoretical background for the procedure followed (thus Haupt, Critical Edition). It
was supposed to be self-evident that scholars compose their own critical editions
following a longstanding tradition of such editions in the areas of classical texts
and the NT.
However, Hendel* 2008 introduces at length the theoretical background of the
OHB eclectic procedure, which justifies the recording of the preferred readings in
the text rather than in an apparatus, as in the BH series. The technicalities of the
OHB recording system are explained in Hendel* 1998, 109-18. OHB's procedure
differs little from that of the earlier eclectic editions, except that the earlier
editions do not always contain a critical apparatus of variants as in OHB. OHB
4 1 Thus, the book of Jeremiah by C.H. Cornill (1895) in that series is rearranged
chronologically according to the assumed dates of the composition of its components.
The first "book" of Jeremiah, compiled by Baruch in the fourth year of Jehoiakim,
contained chapters 1-2; 3:1-4, 19-25; 4--6, continuing with 3:6-16; 11; 12:1-6; 18:7-8; 9:1421; 10:17-24; 25; 46, etc. The next collections of prophecies and stories were assigned to
later dates, followed by a collection compiled after Jeremiah's death (chapters 19, 20, 26,
36, 45, 27, 28, etc.). Cornill's unbridled criticism is not based on any manuscript
evidence. Thus, in Jeremiah 27, he presented a Hebrew reconstruction of a short text of
that chapter, only partly coinciding with tB (see pp. 70-71 there). Likewise, the edition of
1 Samuel 1-2 (K. Budde, 1894) includes many readings of \B, together with the editor's
conjectural emendations+ (e.g. the omission of 1:6).
42 Borbone, Osea; G. Garbini, Cantico dei Cantici: Testo, tradizione, note e commento (Brescia:
Paideia, 1992); A. Catastini, Storia di GiusqJpe (Genesi 37-50) (Venice: Marsilio, 1994);
This study needs to be viewed together with Catastini's detailed textual analysis,
L'ltinerario di GiusqJpe, Studio su/la tradizione di Genesi 37-50 (Dipartimento di Studi
Orientali. Studi Semitici, N. S. 13; Rome: Universita degli Studi "La Sapienza," 1995).
43 The following sample editions have been published to date: Hendel, Genesis 1-11 (1998);
H. van Rooy, "A New Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible," JNSL 30 (2004) 139-50
<Ezekiel1>; S. White Crawford, "Textual Criticism of the Book of Deuteronomy and the
Oxford Hebrew Bible Project," in Wisdom of the Ancienls, 315-26; M.V. Fox, "Editing
Proverbs: The Challenge of the Oxford Hebrew Bible," JNSL 32 (2006) 1-22; Hendel* 2007
<1 Samuel 17>; Crawford-Joosten-Ulrich* <Deuteronomy 32, 1 Kings 11, Jeremiah 27>.
B3: Eclectic Editions
363
presents (a) a critically restored text ("the critical text"), accompanied by (b) an
apparatus of readings ("secondary readings"), including m, that differ from the
critical text, (c) conjectural emendations+ (named "reconstructions" in Hendel,
Genesis 1-11, 116 and indicated by an asterisk in the text), and (d) a series of brief
textual notes defending the decisions.
a. The goals of the eclectic editions were phrased best by Hendel in constant
dialogue with other scholars. "The practical goal for the OHB is to approximate
in its critical text the textual 'archetype,' by which I mean," says Hendel,44 '"the
earliest inferable textual state'."
b. Subjectivity. An OHB editor may include a long plus from a Qumran text,
and he/she may exclude a whole verse of m, or change the wording, language,
and orthography. These decisions are as subjective as those reflected in the BH
series, but the difference between the two editions is that with BHS or BHQ in
one's hand, one continues to use the received text (m), with a reconstructed text
in one's mind as recorded in the apparatus. On the other hand, in the case of
eclectic editions one has to use the reconstructed text, while the received text may
be consulted at the bottom of the page.
c. Multiple early Bible editions. When multiple early Bible editions have been
preserved, such as in the case of the long and short texts of Jeremiah ..... ch. 7B1,
OHB (2011) implements a more advanced procedure than in Hendel* 1999. The
textual /literary variants are no longer presented in an apparatus, but as fullfledged parallel editions. Through this procedure, OHB aims to provide the
readers with a tool allowing them to visualize two or more literary stages in the
development of the book without pressuring the reader to decide between them.
This advancement in editorial technique reflects our own understanding of the
development of the early books ...... ch. 7. Thus, Ulrich in Crawford-JoostenUlrich* (2008) 363-6 presents a Hebrew reconstruction of the Vorlage of of Jer
27:1-10 as the earlier Edition A alongside m that incorporates the later Ed. B.
Similarly, in the presentation of the two editions of 1 Kgs 11:1-8, Joosten, ibid.,
357-8 presented mas the earlier Ed. A and as the later Ed. B (thus also ch. 7 B7) .
..... e
d. Degree of deviation from m. Some editions deviate little from m, 45 while
others deviate much.46
44 Ibid., 329-30. Hendel's position is based on E.J. Kenney, "Textual Criticism,"

Encyclopaedia Britannica (15'h ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984) 18.191.
45 N. Fernandez Marcos, "The Genuine Text of Judges," in Safer Mahfr, 33-45 posits that an
eclectic edition of Judges will differ but little from m, and that therefore the OHB system
is desirable in this book.
46 The reconstructed text of Hendel, Genesis 1-11 deviates from m in 43 of the 284
differences between the critical text and any of the textual witnesses that are recorded in
the apparatus (15% of the deviations, not of the eclectic text itself).
364
Evaluation oJOHB (based on publications until2011)

For a detailed evaluation, see Tov* 2008, 2011 (p. 360) and Williamson*.
e. In spite of the problems encountered ..... a, the editors of OHB believe that
there was an original text (or in some cases two ..... c), since otherwise they would
not have reconstructed such an entity. However, now more than ever it seems
that there never was an "archetype" or "original text" of most Scripture books ......
pp. 167-9. For most biblical books, scholars assume editorial changes over the
course of many generations or even centuries. If this assumption is correct, there
never was a single text that may be considered the original text for textual
criticism; rather, we have to assume compositional stages, each of which was
meant to be authoritative when completed. On the other hand, the point of
departure for the OHB is the assumption that there was one or, in some cases,
two such editions that may be reconstructed. The BH series, and BHQ in
particular, struggles with the same problems ..... v, dd, but in that enterprise the
difficulties are fewer, since the edition itself always presents m.
f. If OHB's principle of reconstructing an original edition based on evidence
and conjectural emendation+ is accepted, it remains difficult to decide which
compositional level should be reconstructed. 47
g. The presentation of different "editions" in parallel columns is an important
step forward ..... c, but the problems in presenting the parallel editions (1 Kings
11 m 11J and Jeremiah 27 m 11J in Crawford-Joosten-Ulrich*; 1 Samuel 17 in
Hendel* 2007) jeopardize the very existence of these editions ...... Tov* 2011 (p. 360)
h. The presentation of the orthography of the reconstructed original text poses
an almost insurmountable problem, as claimed already by Cornill, Ezechiel (1886)
and repeated by Williamson*. Hendel was aware of this problem, and decided to
adhere to the spelling of codex C3 (Hendel* 1999, 116-18) or L (Hendel* 2008,
343-6), together with their vocalization+ and accentuation+. Words differing from
!11 that are included in the eclectic text are presented without these two sets of
data, but the reconstructed Vorlage of IIJ in 1 Kings 11, when agreeing with m, is
reconstructed together with the Masoretic vowels and accents.
j. Numerous practical problems in the reconstruction of the Vorlage of the
versional text and in the evaluation of variants prevent the meaningful reconstruction of the original Hebrew text of any text unit. These problems are visible
in the details of the published samples of OHB, and probably more so in other
publications. 48
47 An editor of the OHB may decide to exclude the secondarily added hymns of Hannah (1
Sam 2:1-10) and Jonah (Jonah 2). By the same token, OHB could exclude Gen 12:6 "and
the Canaanites were then in the land," considered secondary by all critical scholars.
48 For example, it seems almost impossible to reach a reasonable conclusion regarding the
original readings in most verses in 1 Sam 1:22-28 and 1 Sam 2:3, 8-11. Possibly the
ancient texts preserve two or three parallel versions of 1 Samuel 1-2 (-+ ch. 7B4b and
Index 1), but the problems are not alleviated if the texts are presented in parallel
columns rather than as a single text. It should be remembered that the only book in BHS
that does not include evaluations is 1-2 Samuel (ed. P.A.H. de Boer).
83: Eclectic Editions
365
4. All Existing Editions
To some extent, all existing editions are problematic.
Centrality ofm. Despite some statements to the contrary, all scholarly

and non-scholarly editions of Hebrew Scripture revolve around m, 49
which is more central than ever in everyone's thinking.-+ pp. 160-61 and
Tov* 2002, 236-9. Non-scholarly editions present m, or more precisely
TMT+, while all scholarly editions present m with or without an
apparatus. Furthest removed from m are the eclectic editions, but even
they use m as their framework. Other scholarly editions (the BH series
and the HUB) meticulously present the best Ben-Asher+ manuscripts,
including their Masorah and section divisions. This precision regarding
m is absolutely necessary for the study of Tiberian Hebrew and the
history of m, but because of the preoccupation with the medieval layer of
m, the readers' focus is diverted from the very important ancient material
contained in 63 and the Qumran scrolls. Readings from these sources are
mentioned-in a way, hidden-in an apparatus to the text of m rather
than appearing next to it or, in its place. The decision to structure
editions around m is natural; after all, m is the central text of Judaism,
and it is much valued by scholars. Besides, the scrolls are fragmentary,
and 63 is in Greek. Notwithstanding, there is a conceptual problem in the
focusing of all editions on m. Despite the fullness of data in the HUB and
the BH series, these editions perpetuate the perception that m is the main
representative of Scripture that was circulating in antiquity. The systems
employed in the present editions do not educate future generations
towards an egalitarian approach to all the textual sources. so
Scholars know that the printed editions do not contain the Bible, but
merely one textual tradition, but we nevertheless often mislead ourselves
into thinking that it is the Bible. However, the text of the Bible is found in
a wide group of sources, from m,.through the Judean Desert Scrolls, to 63.
Accordingly, the so-called Biblia Hebraica edition 51 is not a Biblia Hebraica,
strictly speaking, but a Biblia Masoretica. So far, there is no real Biblia
Hebraica in existence, unless one considers the details in the apparatus of
the BH series as representing all the sources behind them.
49 Kittel, Notwendigkeit, 34 stresses this point when introducing the first edition of BH.
50 Tov 2002* pointed out that many critical commentaries and introductions are mainly
based on m. For details relating to the introductions by S.R. Driver, Eissfeldt, and
Zenger and the commentaries by Gunkel, Dahood, Noth, Westerman, Zimmerli,
Milgram, and Levine, see Tov, ibid. Important remarks and theories by these scholars
were based on m only, although all of them were aware of liJ and all other significant
sources.
SJ Seen. 13 on the confusion regarding the meaning of the title Biblia Hebraica.
366
Explanations in an apparatus. Over the last half-century, scholarly

editions have developed through constant interaction with one another,
largely in the direction of the HUB system. These editions now record
many groups of readings in the apparatus, with the main aim of enabling
the readers to form an opinion on the primary and secondary status of
the manifold Hebrew and versional variants. Secondary variants are
important, too, because they sometimes reflect the exegesis of
generations of tradents -+ p. 240, n. 65, but scholars probably agree that
the apparatuses of both the HUB and the BH series often contain much
information that is less important for exegesis. In a way, this situation is
inevitable as editors do not know which details are secondary or
unimportant. However, one thing is certain, the main purpose of the
apparatus, the provision of information about non-Masoretic traditions
to be used in biblical exegesis, has been blurred due to the multiplicity of
these details. This observation leads to the next point:
Important data. It is difficult to focus on the important readings in an
apparatus as they are surrounded by many unimportant ones. For
example, the important details from the different (literary) editions of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel in and the Qumran scrolls have been recorded in
the apparatus of HUB, and will be found in BHQ, when available, but the
reader does not recognize them easily. Therefore, these important
variants cannot be used conveniently in exegesis. Their use is facilitated
in OHB, but that edition is problematical for different reasons.-+ p. 364
5. Alternative Types of Editions?
The possibility of a multi-column edition was analyzed briefly by Tov*
2008, 266-9. The purpose of such an edition, printed or electronic, would
be to educate the users toward an egalitarian approach to the textual
witnesses, which cannot be achieved with the present tools. 52 The edition
would present m,
w., and some Qumran texts on an equal basis in
parallel columns, with notes on the reconstructed parent text of
and
perhaps with English translations of all the data. The presentation of the
text in the parallel columns would show graphically the relation between
the plus and minus elements, and it would enable literary analysis,
exegesis, and textual analysis.
A combined diplomatic+ and eclectic+ edition would present both
types of edition on the same page in parallel columns or one after the
other, thus combining the best of both systems. 53
52 For one type of solution, see the Biblia Qumranica, represented by a single volume to
date.
53 Suggested by N. Barak in a seminar paper submitted to the Hebrew University.
367
Appendix: Modem Translations as Bible Editions

recovery of ancient Hebrew manuscripts from caves at Qumran
and neighboring areas of the Judean desert ... have focused attention
on the text and on the need for possible revisions in our English
Bibles" G. Reumann, preface to Ap-Thomas, Primer [1966] iii).
B. Albrektson, "The Swedish Old Testament Translation Project: Principles and Problems,"
in Theory and Practice (1978) 151-64; id., Text (2010) 95-106, 121-34; S.C. Daley, "Textual
Influence of the Qumran Scrolls on English Bible Versions," in The Bible as Book (2002) 253-87; id., Textual Basis (2007); R.P. Gordon, "The Citation of the Targums in Recent English
Bible Translations (RSV, JB, NEB)," JJS 26 (1975) 50--60; L. Greenspoon, "It's All Greek to
Me: The Septuagint in Modern English Versions of the Bible," in Cox, VII Congress, 1-21; C.
Locher, "Der Psalter der 'Einheitstibersetzung' und die Textkritik, 1," Bib 58 (1977) 313-41;
II, Bib 59 (1978) 49-79; Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism"; H.P. Scanlin, "The
Presuppositions of HOTTP and the Translator," BT 43 (1992) 101-16; id., The Dead Sea
Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993); id.,
" ... According to the Traditional Hebrew Text as a Translation Principle in Tanakh," in I
Must Speak to You Plainly: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Bratcher (ed. R.L. Omanson; Carlisle:
Paternoster, 2000) 23-37; A. Schenker, "Was iibersetzen Wir? Fragen zur Textbasis, die sich
aus der Textkritik ergeben," in Die Obersetzung der Bibel: Aufgabe der Theologie (ed. J. Gnilka
& H.P. Ruger; Bielefeld: Luther, 1985) 65-80; R. Sollamo, "The Source Text for the
<Finnish> Translation of the Old Testament," BT 37 (1986) 319-22; Tov, "Textual Basis"
(2008); Ulrich, DSS, 34-50. See further n. 75
Seemingly far removed from the textual analysis of ancient texts, modern
Bible translations are relevant to the topic of this chapter since the great
majority of the modern translations present often-unrecognized eclectic
text editions similar to their counterparts in the originallanguages. 54 As
in the case of eclectic editions in the source languages, the eclecticism of
the translations consists of the adherence to m in most cases while
selectively adopting readings from the non-m sources, mainly
and,
since 1947, also the Qumran scrolls. Such translations depart from m
either frequently (group 1 below)or occasionally (group 2).55 A relatively
54 When non-Masoretic elements are adopted by a translation, that translation takes the
form of a critical edition, because in such instances them readings, which are sometimes
mentioned in an apparatus of notes, have been replaced by other ones. Thus, the notes
in NEB and REB contain such remarks as "Heb. adds," "verses ... are probably
misplaced," "so some MSS," "Heb. omits," "probable reading," etc.
55 See especially Daley* 2007 and further K.R. Crim, "Versions, English," lOBS up, 933-8; B.
Ljungberg et al., Att oversiitta Gam/a testamentet: Texter, kommentarer, riktlinjer (Statens
offentliga utredningar 1974:33; Stockholm: Betankande av 1971 ars bibelkommitte fOr
Gamla testamentet, 1974); W. McKane, "Textual and Philological Notes on the Book of
Proverbs with Special Reference to the New English Bible," Transactio11s of the Glasgow
University Oriental Society 1971-1972, 24(1974) 76-90; M.N. van der Meer, "De Nieuwe
Bijbelvertaling in het Iicht van recente ontwikkelingen op het gebied van tekstkritiek
van het Oude Testament," NedTT 37 (2003) 193-206.
368
small group of translations (group 3) adheres exclusively tom or another

ancient source.
In addition to the eclectic editions of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture,
which are few in number, there are a large number of eclectic editions
embedded in modern translations that are included in (1) most critical
commentaries of the biblical books and (2) translations prepared for
believing communities as well as the general public.56 A third group of
translations (3) attempt to faithfully represent one of the ancient standard
texts of the Bible.
Group 1. Translations of the reconstructed base text included in most

critical commentaries are by definition eclectic. Their point of departure is
m, but they also draw much on other textual sources and include
conjectural emendations+ when the known textual sources do not yield a
satisfactory reading. The translations claim to reflect the original text of
the biblical books, even if this term is usually not used explicitly in the
introductions to the commentaries. The main difference between these
translations and eclectic Hebrew-Aramaic text editions is that they are
worded in a modern language. Critical remarks on the readings adopted
and rejected are included in a separate apparatus or in the commentary
itself.
Translations, such as those included in the volumes of the ICC, BK and
other series, as well as many monographs delete, add, transpose and
correct words, verses, sections, and chapters in m on the basis of l\J, a
Qumran text, or rarely another source, and present a reconstructed text
that often differs greatly from m (e.g. Table 3). In their approach to the
biblical text, many scholars are probably more daring when producing a
modern translation than when commenting on the texts in the source
languages. 57 The distance from the Bible languages and the use of a
familiar European language probably explain the freedom that scholars
allow themselves when approaching the text in translation. However,
only a small number of problems are avoided when a non-m reading is
presented in translation; most difficulties concerning the reconstruction
of the original text also have to be faced in modern language translations.
Table 3 illustrates some of these decisions.
56
For example, RSV; NRSV; NAB; NEB; REB; Bj; Einheitsiibersetzung der Heiligen Schrift
(Stuttgart: Katholischen Bibelanstalt, 1974); The New Jerusalem Bible (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1990; New York: Doubleday, 1990); Die Heilige Schrift des A/ten und
des Neue11 Testaments (Zurich: Verlag der Zurcher Bibel, 1991).
5? Equally daring are the reconstructions included in the eclectic Bible editions. - B3
above
369
Table 3
Eclectic Editions in Translation
a. Jeremiah 27
The
text of Jeremiah 27 provides the basis for modern eclectic translations
of that chapter ..... ch. 7B1, although in practice most commentators follow the
guidance of BHS. This table presents the text-critical choices adopted in eclectic
translations by Rudolph, Jeremia, 158-61; Holladay, Jeremiah, 2.112-4; and
McKane, Jeremiah, II.684-5. Departures from m in the translation are usually
indicated by notes to the text or by signs in the text itself. 58
The second column in the table describes relative to col. 1 (m), while col. 3
presents the judgment of BHS on the data in col. 2
The next three columns
record the presentation of these data in the translations included in the
commentaries of Rudolph (col. 4), Holladay (col. 5), and McKane (col. 6), listed in
chronological order. When the translation in the commentary uses square
brackets form elements that are lacking in an ancient source
it usually
indicates that these elements were not part of the original text. 59
The symbol ".[" indicates that the commentator followed the judgment of
BHS (col. 3), while ".f [ ]" indicates that the item agreeing with col. 2 is bracketed
in the translation. "-" indicates that the item in col. 2 is disregarded in the
translation, and ">" signifies that the item is omitted in the translation.
Ref.
1.
m
2.
relative
tom
''N
1'
3
cnn'?tv,
t:':::lN'?o
t:J'?tD1i'
> (?)
nn'?tv1
3.
BHs
=col. 2?
Changes
date and
name of
king.
4.
5.
Rudolph
=col. 2?
.[
]60
Holladay McKane
=col. 2? =col. 2?
-(=!11
.[ [ ]
with a
change)
[ ]
.f[ ]
.[
-(=m)
-(=m)
-(=m)
.[
.[
.[
-(=m)
-(=m)
-(=m)
-(=m)
-(=m)
-(=m)
.[
-(=m)
-(=m)
.[
.f(l t:Ji1':::lN'?o)
+ pron
+ t:JnNip'? .[
6.
.[
>
58 For example, v 2 in McKane's translation: "These are the words of Yahweh [to me]: ... "
59 See McKane, jeremiah, II. vii "The square brackets in the translation indicate the surplus
of the Massoretic text over the text of the Septuagint." The commentary explains each of
these elements as secondary. Some elements indicated by square brackets in the
translation are marked in the commentary as "difficult to judge" (p. 692 referring to vv
12-14). Several elements, such as v 19 "(which are left in this city]" are presented
without comment. In Holladay's system, [ ] indicates "secondary interpolations or
redactional supplements to the Book of Jeremiah" (I.xxii).
60
Rudolph, who was responsible for Jeremiah in BHS, treated this verse differently in
both publications.
370
Ref.
2.
relative
tom
1.
m
>
>
i'Tn.!l1
?:;,
3.
BHS
4.
=col. 2?
.f (homoio)
-(=ffi)
,[
.f[ ]
>
,[
-(=ffi)
-(=ffi)
-(=m)
> (?)
,[
-(=ffi)
-(=m)
-(=m)
,[
-(=ffi)
,[
,[
,[
-(=m)
,[
>
-(=m)
-(=ffi)
-(=m)
-(=m)
.f[ ]
,[
'i::l.!l
1i::l.!l?
1? nnJ
>
c?iJ-1i::l.!l1
>
iT'i!(1)
> (?)
(?)
,[
?
.f (homoio)
,::li::l1
5.
6.
= l!ollada;' McKane
col. .
- col. 2. =col. 2?
-(=ffi) ,[ [ ]
,[ [ ]
-(=m)
>
-(=m)
,f [ ](part) ,[
,[
[ ]
[
[
[ ]
[ ]
-(=ffi)
,[
UIJTOUS"
-(=ffi)
,[
iT1iT'
=ffi
-(=m)
-(=m)
-(=m)
on
= m (?)
nn
nn on
on iT
-?
.f[
,[ [
-?
-(=m)
.f[
-(=m)
-(=m)
,[
-(=ffi)
-(=m)
,[
.f[
-(=ffi)
,[
-(=ffi)
-(=m)
-(=m)
trsp
-(=m)
-(=ffi)
-(=m)
=ffi
[ ]
-(=m)
-(=ffi)
,[
'1JiT ?.!l
nn
>
9
nniiT1
10
>
11
'iT
>
12
>
12-
'?::l::ll?O ?.!l::l
_,;o?"
14
1i::l.!ln"
>
,[
,[
,f (homoio)
+ _,pq]?
15
[
[
c:;,?
16
I c'Ji!:;,i!
16
iT1iT'
iT:l
iT,iTo i'Tn.!l
>
,[
-(=!H)
iT::l,n-1.!lOq]n
>
,f (add?)
,[
18
>
,[
-(=m)
19
>
,f (add,
17
cf.
,[
[
[
]
]
[ ]
-(=m)
,[
,[
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
.f[ ]
,[ [ ]
.f[ ]
,[
52,17)
, .!l::l c,n1JiT
20
;-r;,;-r 1"o cp1;-r
iT?:!:!
21
r:::J?q]1,'1-,i:;, :;,
22
iTliT-c'n'?.!l;-r1
>
,[
-(=m)
>
,[
-(=m)
>
,[
-(=ffi)
-(=m)
>
>
,[
>
,[
>
.f (add)
>
,[
.f[ ]
,[ [ ]
.f[ ]
,[ [ ]
.f[
,[ [
.f[
.f[
,[ [
.f[
,[ [
,[ [
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
[ ]
.f[ ]
,[ [ ]
,[ [ ]
,[ [ ]
,[ [ ]
,[ [ ]
,[ [ ]
,[
371
Some conclusions:
The subjectively reconstructed original shape is potentially helpful for
gaining insights into the textual and literary development of the text.
No two reconstructed translations are identical in this chapter. Taking the
short text of
as point of departure, some commentaries accept more short
readings than others as being original.6 1
Commentators could have provided a general explanation that would cover
all the minuses
as recorded in col. 2, by considering the longer text of m+ as
secondary. However, this road is not followed by anyone, since some of the
minuses of
may have resulted from a textual mishap, such as homoioteleuton+.62
b. Jeremiah 10
The text
and 4QJerb in Jer 10:1-11, differing much from m+ (-+ pp. 292--4),
provides the basis for eclectic translations in some commentaries. Thus J. Bright,
Jeremiah (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965) presents the sequence of the
verses in the translation as in
4a, 9b, 4b, 5-8, 9a, 10, 12, with a note that v 11
presents a gloss. Likewise, Rudolph*, 64-6 arranged Jer 10:4-16 partially as
and partially according to his own views: 4a, 9, 4b, 5, 8, 10, 12-16; 6-7; 11; 17ff. On
the other hand, McKane*, 1.217 and Holladay*, 323--4 left the text of this chapter
in mvirtually unchanged, although both scholars stated
is older than m.
Group 2. A second type of translation is intended for believing

communities and the general public. -+ n. 75. Group 1 scholarly
translations are entitled to be vague or to omit difficult words. They also
permit themselves to be daring in the reconstruction of the original text
and they sometimes use different typefaces or colors to indicate different
layers of composition. All these elements are foreign to group 2
translations. The two types of translation share the same principles, but
the level of their departure from m differs: The translations of group 2
depart only occasionally from m when reflecting variant readings and
conjectural emendations+.
61 BHS, while serving as a major source of information for the commentaries, is a textual
commentary itself, in this case of lower quality than the critical commentaries. For
in vv 4, 6, 8 (four times), 9, 11, 15, 16
example, that edition does not record minuses
(twice), 20.
62 A tendency towards the almost total acceptance of the shorter text as being earlier is
visible in McKane's translation. Furthest removed from this view among the quoted
commentaries is that of Rudolph, who incorporates the smallest number of minuses in
his translation. -+ p. 289, n. 14 (Lundblom). The approach of BHS in Jeremiah, produced
by the same scholar, is similar, but it is not easy to extract such information from an
apparatus that lacks a textual compendium. The fact that three
minuses in this
chapter are described in BHS as "add(itum)" in m (vv 17, 19, 22), indicates that
according to BHS the evidence may be disregarded in the other instances.
372
The decisions behind the inclusion of non-Masoretic readings in the

group 2 translations reflect a scholarly evaluation procedure. For
example: 63
Ps 38:20
!TI +
(,ptv
1:l,1
C"n ':l'N1 ( =
NJPS
NRSV
Cf. 4QPsa
or my mortal enemies (are numerous; my treacherous

foes are many)
Those who are my foes without cause (are mighty, and
many are those who hate me wrongfully)
':l'N1 my foes without cause
While NRSV usually follows m, in this case it follows a variant in 4QPsa,

supported by the parallel phrase "those who hate me wrongfully" (and the same
phrase in Lam 3:52) and by em
(those who hate me without cause) in Ps
35:19; 69:5.
1 Chr 4:22
NRSV
Cf. 0
en'-, ':;l({i:,1 (:lN1o'-, 1'-,ll:l. ,iVN COJ,iV1 ... )
( ... and Saraph, who married into Moab) and Jashubi

Lehem
(and Saraph, who married into Moab) but returned to
Lehem
et qui reversi sunt in Leem (= 1:l({i:,1 ?)
A note in NRSV informs the reader that the translation, based on 0 and
supported
(Kal. arrEaTpEt)JEv atJTOVS'), differs from m.
Hag 2:15-16
NJPS
NRSV
... em;"To 16 ;"11;"1' '-,;:,;"T:l J:lN '-,N J:lN e1tv
As long as no stone had been laid on another in the

House of the LORD, 16 iJ one ...
Before a stone was placed upon a stone in the LORD's
Temple, 16 /zow did you fare?
rrpo Tou 8{ivm >..(Sov ETTL >..(8ov EV Tlji valji Kvp[ov 16TtVES'
T]TE
before laying one stone upon another in the LORD's

shrine, 16 who were you?
A note in NRSV informs the reader that the translation is based
vv 15 and 16.-+ verse division+
combining
Group 2 translations also include some emendations+ when the

translator feels that m or the other textual witnesses do not contain a
reading that would fit the context. For example:
Amos 6:12a
!11
Emendation:
REB
C'!i?:;J:;l
CN (0'010 ll'-,O:l
(Can horses gallop on a rock?) Can one plough it with

oxen (or: in the mornings)?
eN (BH, BHS
Can the sea be ploughed with oxen? (sim. NRSV, NAB)
For a discussion, see p. 331. See further the following examples: Judg 9:31 (p.
228); Ps 22:16 (p. 334); 72:9 (p. 334); 73:1 (p. 334).
63 For an additional example, seep. 3, n. 2.
373
The reader is usually not given details on the background of the

deviations from m, although recent translations have included increasing
amounts of information.64 Common to most translators is the feeling that
m should be the base for the translation, but that sometimes other
readings should be preferred (or that, in the words of Albrektson* 2010
[= 1978] 152, m should be corrected). Because of the discoveries of the
Judean Desert scrolls and the growing awareness of the importance of 63,
translators became increasingly more attentive to the text-critical
background of translations. Scanlin* 1992, 108 lists the number of
departures from m in some modern translations of 1 Samuel, 65 while
Daley* 2007 provides detailed statistics for select chapters in 21 English
translations dating from 1611 (KJV) to 1996 (NLT). Gordon* reviewed the
inclusion of elements from the Targumim in some modern translations,
while Scanlin* 1993, 107-38 covered the Qumran scrolls extensively.
Some translations relatively frequently incorporate readings from 63
(especially JB and NAB), 66 while the NAB and NRSV also include a fair
number of readings from the Qumran texts. -+ Daley* 2002. For example,
against all other modern translations, the NRSV adds a hemistich+ in
Deut 32:43 (-+ ch. 4, Table 8 [pp. 249-50]) as well as a complete section
from 4QSama after 1 Sam 10:27. -+ ch. 7B10. Likewise, the greatly
deviating text of the NAB in 1 Sam 14:23-24 follows 63. In the difficult
verse 1 Sam 1:28, NRSV follows 63 in 2:11 (see the textual note in that
translation). For a collection of details in modern translations that differ
from m, see Barthelemy, Interim Report and Daley* 2007.-+ n. 64
Different tendencies in the inclusion of such non-Masoretic readings in the
translations are visible throughout the decennia, and in the words of Daley* 2007,
420, "ETs <English translations> from 1611 to 1917 reflect but few textual
departures from m, ETs from 1924 to 1970 reflect a consistently high number, and
ETs from 1971 to 1996 reflect a mixed, generally moderate number of departures
64 L.H. Brockington, The Hebrew Text vf the Old Testament: The Readings Adopted by the
Translators of the New English Bible (London/Cambridge: Oxford University Press/
Cambridge University Press, 1973); S. Holm-Nielsen, Noter til bibeloversa?ttelsen af 1992:
Rettelser i den hebraiske tekst (Copenhagen: Det Danske Bibelselskab, 1997); Textual Notes
on the New American Bible (St. Anthony's Guild; Patterson, N.J. [n.d.)); Bibeln, Ovrigt
(SOU 2000:100; Stockholm, 2000) 3361-92; NJPS; NRSV.
65 These differences range from 15 instances in the NIV to 250 in the NAB. It seems almost
impossible to adhere to m in such a book as 1 Samuel, which is corrupt at times, ..... p.
189 and therefore even the NIV is obliged to deviate occasionally from that text.
66 See B. Albrektson, "Textual Criticism and the Textual Basis of a Translation of the Old
Testament," BT 26 (1975) 314-24 (317); Payne, "Old Testament Textual Criticism";
Greenspoon*.
374
from m." When focusing more specifically on variants in the Qumran scrolls67
and on conjectural emendations+,68 similar trends are visible in the inclusion of
non-Masoretic readings in the translations.
Modern translations display various tendencies. For example, when the
Hebrew text uses different names for the same person, such as in the case of
Ci'n IC,i'n lci,n (Hiram I Hi rom I Huram}, modern translations of this group tend
to harmonize.-+ Daley* 2007, 189 and above p. 16, n. 24
The eclecticism of modern translations is acceptable within churches since
they accept ever-changing Old Testament translations to the same degree as the
eclectic Greek NT editions change from one generation to the next. This approach
was criticized by Tov* 2008 (2000) arguing against a continually changing text
base of translations. 69 Tov preferred a single text base, be it m, , or D. Presently,
the procedures followed even allow the translators to include details from the
versions that probably never existed in Hebrew.7 Thef also enable translators to
make textual decisions that at best are questionable/ requiring the translators,
committees, and the Church to make decisions in matters on which there is no
communis opinio among scholars. Within this system there is room for an
excessively large number of conjectural emendations+, as in NEB and REB, in the
former case reflecting the ideas of a single scholar,72 G.R. Driver. Whatever
formulations modern translations choose in their prefaces, they do aim at the
reconstruction of the original form of the Bible, and in this area there are widely
diverging views among scholars. -+ pp. 161-9. The attempt by these translations
to reconstruct an original text of some sort makes them resemble group 1
translations, and introduces an increasing degree of diversity among them.
-+ Tov* 2008
Group 3. A relatively small group of translations attempt to faithfully

represent one of the standard texts of the Bible, mainly m, but also 0
(several Catholic translations),73 s,74 and .75 Daley* 2007, 165-6 lists the
67 Daley* 2007, 422 notes that readings from 1Qlsaa were included in the RSV as early as
1952. Likewise, the NBV (Dutch, 2004) contains more deviations from min Isaiah (based
on 1Qlsaa) than in the other books.
68 " ... none of the ETs dating from 1611 to 1917 chose to adopt conjectural emendations,
whereas ETs from 1924 to 1970 adopted conjectural emendations in significant
numbers, and ETs from 1971 to 1996 show mixed, generally moderated numbers"
(Daley* 2007, 421). The NEB and REB contain far more emendations than the other
translations (Daley* 2007, 222-3).
69 Scanlin* 1993,22 describes how "[s)urprisingly, Old Testament critics, whose names are
virtually synonymous with emendation and reconstruction of the Urtext, were
themselves cautious when dealing with the question of the textual basis of Old
Testament translation."
70 Thus the NEB often accepted details from the versions that reflect their translation
technique in such grammatical categories as number, person, pronouns, and
prepositions (for example, Gen 48:20; lsa 25:2, 31:1). See further pp. 121-2.
71 For examples, see Tov, HB, GB, and Qumran, 102, n. 31.
72 See Barthelemy, Critique textuelle 1986, 10--11 * and the criticisms of]. Barr, "After Five
Years: A Retrospect on Two Major Translations of the Bible," Hey/ 15 (1974) 381-405.
73 E.g. Msgr. R.A. Knox, The Old Testament, Newly Translated from the LAtin Vulgate
(London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1949; New York: Sheed & Ward, 1954).
375
following translations as being closest to m: KJV, Leeser, 76 "The Revised

Version ",77 the "American Standard Version," 78 and JPS 79 among the older
ones, and the New American Standard Bible, 80 The New King James
Version,81 NJPS, NLT, and NIV (somewhat more eclectic), among the
newer ones. These translations deviate from m very rarely, and not in the
same details. All translations differ in their approach towards the paratextual elements+ such as Ketib-Qere+. 82
Group 3 translations endeavor to represent their source closely
because of their religious background, but in the case of m, due to the
problems inherent in that text, no translation succeeded in reproducing it
in every detail. -+Daley* 2007, 420. Among other things, these problems
are caused by unintelligible or corrupt words in m and various
inconsistencies such as in the presentation of personal names (above p.
373). Accordingly, at times unconventional solutions have been invoked,
especially by NJPS, to enable the inclusion of problematic details in the
translation. Note, for example, the use of dots and brackets in Gen 4:8.
(for the text, seep. 221); Judg 16:2 (p. 11); and 1 Sam 13:1 (pp. 10-11).
In difficult cases, NJPS and NRSV turn to textual evidence. - 1 Sam
1:28 mntv, NJPS (translated as a plural form) - p. 255; 1 Sam 2:11 NJPS
-+ p. 255;83 Jer 27:1 NRSV-+ p. 11, and further:
Ps 71:3
m+
'" i1'i1
NJPS
NRSV
Be for me a rock of dwelling, to come continually you

have commanded (?) to save me.
Be a sheltering rock for me to which I may always
repair; decree my deliverance
Be to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress, to save me.
74 Lamsa, Holy Bible, although this translation does not present 5 precisely.
75 Several confessional translations of
have been prepared for the Eastern European
churches, for whom
has a sacred status: The Apostolic Bible (ed. C. Van der Pool;
Newport, OR: Apostolic Press, 2006); Orthodox Study Bible (ed. J.N. Sparks; Nashville,
TN: T. Nelson, 2008); The Holy Orthodox Bible (ed. P. Papoutsis; n.p.: Papoutsis
Publishing, 2008). For the modern Greek translations based on
see
seep. 135.
http://www .lxxathens200l.org!. For scholarly translations
76 Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures, trans. by Isaac Leeser (New York: Hebrew
Publishing Company, 1853).
77 Cambridge: University Press, 1885.
78 New York: Thomas Nelson, 1901.
79 The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (Philadelphia/New York: JPS, 1917).
8 Cambridge: University Press, 1977.
81 Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1982.
82 Jewish translations nearly always follow the Qere rather than the Ketib, although there
are a few exceptions. --+ Daley* 2007, ch: 4
83 The harmonizing addition of "[and Hannah]" in NJPS, against all textual evidence but
with some support
is meant to solve a literary problem in the context.
376
Ps 31:3
m
NRSV
n,::J" T1vo
', ;,;,
Be a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me.
Most scholars agree that Ps 71:3 has been corrupted and that the text needs to be
read as in the parallel verse Ps 31:3.-+ pp. 237-8
Two different approaches are recognizable among modern translations:
1. NRSV does not represent m of Ps 71:3 but rather lfi ad lac. and m in 31:3,
thereby bypassing the problems of m. A note alerts the readers to the choices
made.
2. N]PS maneuvers the English translation of 1'01'1 N1::J', to read "to which I
may always repair<= 'go'>." It also renders pvo
freely as "sheltering rock"
(literally: "a rock of a dwelling"; by extension: "a rock that is a dwelling").
Further, N]PS parses the words differently than the other sources, and follows
with the next word, to produce a translation
the accents+ in combining
"decree my deliverance."
10
COMPUTER-ASSISTED TOOLS FOR TEXTUAL
CRITICISM
Andersen-Forbes, Spelling (1986); id. & id., The Vocabulary of the Old Testament (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1989); F.H. Polak & G. Marquis, A Classified Index of the Minuses of the
Septuagint, Part I: Introduction; Part II: The Pentateuch (CATSS Basic Tools 4, 5; Stellenbosch:
Print24.com, 2002); E. Tov, "A Computerized Database for Septuagint Research," in id.,
Greek-Hebrew Bible (1999) 31-51.
toofs:- Tov, "Electronic Resources" 2003, 2008; Worth, Biblical Studies 2002.
Since the end of the 20th century, the study of textual criticisrnhas been
aided greatly by computer-assisted tools and research. Such tools consist
of flexible, interactive databases and programs that aid the researcher in
obtaining and analyzing data, while computer-assisted research presents
non-flexible 1 results of investigations that were compiled with the aid of
machine-readable data. The latter type of research will not be referred to
in this chapter. It is probably true to say that involvement in textual
criticism is virtually impossible in the 21st century without the aid of
electronic tools. An ever-increasing number of Bible computer modules
and databases are becoming available and the possibilities for using
them profitably within existing programs are expanding. This increasing
availability enables several types of data retrieval, and allows scholars to
access data and formulate conclusions that would not have been possible
with the conventional research methods. The present chapter briefly
describes the available data, but it should be remembered that due to
ongoing developments some statements may be in need of updating.
This term refers to the results of research that was performed with the aid of computers,
while the computer files or computer applications are not accessible to the researcher,
and as a result the user cannot work with the data themselves. A good example of this
research is contained in the valuable studies of Andersen-Forbes* 1986, 1989.- Tov*
2008 (results of computer-assisted research in the area of textual criticism)
378
Chapter 10: Computer-Assisted Tools
A. Available Tools
In most chapters we mention electronic tools available in commercial and

non-commercial programs, on the web, in COs and DVDs, and
elsewhere. 2 These sources are listed in separate paragraphs introduced
by the header
toofs," immediately after the bibliography. Tov*
2003, 2008 list existing modules, 3 programs, and tools. The great majority
of the modules needed for textual criticism also include a morphological+
analysis. 4 This analysis allows for searches of all the words, combinations
of words, and grammatical categories. 5 The searches cover the following
literatures and areas:
m (according to codices L+ or A+, without medieval variants), allowing for

separate searches of words or meaningful parts of them, vocalization, open and
closed sections+, Ketib-Qere+ forms, accents+, and the MM+ and MP+.6
ll1. (edition of Tal, Shekhem without variants). Accordance enables the automatic
indication of all divergences from m, and searches of all words and grammatical
categories in ll1..
Biblical Dead Sea scrolls, or any group of them such as the pre-Samaritan
texts, with indication of the divergences from m, 7 enabling searches of all words
and grammatical categories.
(editions of Rahlfs, Septuagin ta; Rahlfs-Hanhart, Septuaginta; Gottingen
edition+). 8 In addition, the CATss+ module of indicates divergences from m,
reconstructs details in the Vorlage of, and marks select features in categories in
2
3
6
7
8
Scanned images and private databases and programs are not included in this survey.
--+ Tov* 2003, 2008; Worth, Biblical Studies
A module is a text (e.g. m) that is accessible and searchable within a computer program
(e.g. Accordance, BibleWorks, Logos, SESB). The more sophisticated the search possibilities
of the program, the more effectively the text can be analyzed.
The key to the effective use of any software program of Scripture texts is the availability
in the background of lemmatization and morphological+ analyses (grammatical
tagging) of all the text words in the source languages. The lemmatization allows for a
search of all the text words in addition to the producing of concordances. For example,
the "lemmas" or "headwords" of il':ll('1 are 1 (particle, conjunction) and il':ll( (verb, Qal,
waw consecutive, 3'd person masc. sing.). The morphological analysis is mentioned in
parenthesis.
In the example listed in n. 4, each of the morphological+ features is searchable within
the text module, such as all Qal forms of this verb or all other verbs in the Torah, all the
3'd person masc. sing. forms of all hiph 'il verbs in 2 Kings, etc. In this way, all the types
of nouns, verbs, prepositions and conjunctions are searchable in any search range (the
Bible, a certain book, or part of a book).
These features are not all searchable in the same program ...... Tov* 2003, 2008
This feature is available only in Accordance.
The module of the Rahlfs-Hanhart edition in SESB includes the variants of that edition
("Handausgabe"), while the Gottingen edition in the Logos program includes the full
apparatus of the complete edition ("editio maior").
379
translation technique.9 The (l} module allows for inner-translational searches,

while the CATSS module also allows for searches of the (l}-!TI equivalents.
a: s D (usually without variants, while D in SESB includes variants), allowing
for inner-translational searches.
Apparatus of BHS: fully searchable.
Since the wish to retrieve readily available information is constantly

growing, it should be stressed that in 2011 the data available in machinereadable format are limited, only allowing for some types of computerassisted research. Most research requires combinations of electronic and
manual study of the data, depending on the topic. The machine-readable
form of the BHS apparatus is unsatisfactory for text-critical analysis since
it provides far too little information and is much too subjective. -+ p. 354.
The equivalent tool for BHQ -+ pp. 355-7, when available in full, is more
helpful, since that edition encompasses more data. However, both tools
contain merely a selection of textual data, and therefore are not
substitutes for other types of research, among them manual research. A
machine-readable form of the HUB apparatus -+ p. 357-9, if and when
available, would come closer to the needs of the researcher, but that
edition also provides too little information.
As a result, there is no substitute for the manual use of the data in the
source languages, with the supplement and aid of machine-readable
modules such as those listed in Tov* 2003, 2008. In 2011, only two of
these modules include variant readings (for
see n. 8), making the
manual use of the editions of the versions a necessary supplement to
electronic searches. Furthermore, use of the modules would be more
efficient if they included a reconstruction, however tentative, of the
Vorlage of the ancient versions when they supposedly differ from m,
providing the researcher with additional research possibilities. In 2011,
such facilities are available (partially) only for the CATSS+ module of
Subjectivity and Caution. Ma(.:hine-readable modules should be used
cautiously, which applies as well to the use of any printed source. Since modules
For example, differences between 11} and m in number, person, addition/ omission of'-,:;.
It also includes notes on transliterations+ and doublets+ in 11}, interchanges of
consonants+ between m and 11}, and the relation between 11} and Ketib-Qere+.
10 In the world of tomorrow, we hope to see sophisticated modules of all the ancient
versions and an improved version of CATSS. Further, we would like to see
interconnected modules of Hebrew manuscripts and the ancient versions. However,
even then the researcher would need to resort to several printed sources as supplements
to the computer modules. In future research, the most efficient first step would be the
use of electronic data, allowing the researcher to access more data than was previously
available. After all, in the study of textual criticism we need access to a multitude of
details, and while judgment remains the major component in the study of texts, we can
only hope to ever access all the data with the aid of electronic databases.
380
are compiled manually, we must remember that a machine-readable text, having

been encoded by humans, may contain mistakes. 11
The evaluation of variant readings may be based partially on data that are
collected electronically, but ultimately the evaluating process of these variants
remains subjective.-+ ch. 6. Use of electronic data does not replace judgment.l2
B. Categories of Information
Textual criticism involves the comparison of all details in the texts and
therefore necessarily deals with all types of information that may be
extracted from them. This includes the areas of language, theology,
geography, history, chronology, mythology, and all literary genres
(wisdom, psalmody, prophecy, laments, narratives, etc.), and all other
categories of information contained in texts. Variants in all these areas
may be equally as relevant as the central text (for example, m), since any
variant may reflect the original text.
Not all types of information can be retrieved using electronic tools; in
fact, in the long list of areas mentioned in the previous paragraph, only a
very small percentage of the variants can be researched en bloc. For
example, the reason that variants in the areas of history, geography, or
prophecy cannot be researched is because the details have not been
marked as "historical," "geographical," etc. in the databases. Users can
indicate historical books and sections as their "search range," but their
content is not necessarily "historical." In order to search for historical
details, they first need to be indicated manually.
As a result, most, but not all, information that we wish to retrieve
from the computer modules needs first to be inserted. However, the
computer can also help us in retrieving some information that has not
11 Furthermore, text modules involve editorial judgment in the choice of, for example, a
printed edition or manuscript, recording of Ketib-Qere+, and the indication of verses,
etc. This subjective element comes to light especially in the recording and analysis of the
Judean Desert scrolls because of their fragmentary nature. The morphological analysis
of all the texts and the determining of the "headwords" are also subjective and may be
incorrect. As a result, incorrect decisions limit the usefulness of searches. For example, a
search for all the participles in a text module will be defective if a certain participle is
parsed as a noun or vice versa. Likewise, the recording of the reconstructed parent text
in col. b of the CATSS module is subjective, and an examination of a Hebrew word
will provide incomplete results if a researcher expects to find a certain reconstruction in
that column that has not been accepted by the editors of CATSS.
12 Evaluations are based on the raw material such as that included in concordances,
dictionaries, and electronic tools. Other evaluations are based on processed data
provided by electronic tools, such as reconstructed readings, which contain a greater
percentage of subjective information than the readings of the ancient sources
themselves.
381
been expressly indicated. Thus, we can find vocabulary differences

between witnesses in the same language, enabling the user to focus on
the differences between m, w., and the Judean Desert scrolls, the various
Greek translations, modern translations of , 13 the various Targumim,
modern translations, etc. Other types of information that have not been
inserted are the number of letters, words, and verses in the text,
information about the distribution of words, patterns, and word
combinations in Hebrew Scripture as a whole, in a book, or chapter.
Among other things, the computer can determine the most frequent or
infrequent words or Greek-Hebrew equivalents in a unit, patterns in the
use of the divine names, etc.
With the exception of the types of information mentioned in the
previous paragraph, the user cannot retrieve information from computer
modules that has not been entered. 14 An indication of any type of detail
("predetermined information") would significantly expand the search
and research facilities in the post-modern world. In my view,
commentators on all biblical books are unable to obtain the necessary
data in the textual witnesses in many areas, making predetermined
information a desideratum for the writing of commentaries.
C. Predetermined Information
In the future, hopefully the biblical modules will include several types of
predetermined information. In 2011, the major sets of analysis that have
been pre-determined are limited, covering only the morphological
analysis of the main texts (-+ n. 4) and some features of:
a. Morphological and syntactic analysis of m; 15
b. Morphological analysis of w., the Judean Desert scrolls,,([, 5, D;
c. Indication of some features of the translation technique+ of and
the relation between and min -the CATSS+ module.-+ n. 9
It would be advantageous for the development of research if many
additional sets of information such as those mentioned in section B were
to be incorporated into the existing databases. For example, historical
data may be added to extant databases such as CATSS+ or may be
13 L.L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament with an English Translation
(London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1879); NETS.
14 Thus, the computer will not list, for example, the names of the kings of Israel and Judah,
the number of such kings, the names of the sons of Jacob, the cities in the tribal area of
Asher, a list of the prophets and false prophets, a comparison of the prophecies against
the foreign nations by Isaiah, Jeremiah; and Ezekiel, etc.
15 The morphological analyses are listed in Tov* 2003, 2008; for syntactic analyses, see
SESB and the Andersen-Forbes database (both available in LoKos).
382
included in a new database based on m, 16 enabling their automatic

retrieval. By the same token, it would be advantageous if all possible
theological variations between textual sources were to be mapped.
Undoubtedly, the very recording of such variations is subjective, but
should be sophisticated enough to enable meaningful continued
research. For example, m probably contains more examples of theological
changes in Samuel than in other books - pp. 254-6, but this impression
needs to be substantiated statistically.
Two areas are singled out for special attention:
Textual analysis. In the area of textual criticism, merely a beginning
has been made in computer-assisted research. - Tov* 2008. Future
databases should include textual variations and some categories of notes
on the translation technique+ of the ancient versions similar to the
notations in CATSS+, as well as textual phenomena, such as
harmonizations+, pluses and minuses- Polak-Marquis*, exclusive innertranslational agreements, and several types of information such as
described in section B.
The computer-assisted analysis of the interchanges+ of consonants
between m and \13 shows some distribution patterns in the Scripture
books. It also shows the letters that are most frequently interchanged.
-pp. 227-34
Linguistic analysis. The area that is best covered in the computer
modules is that of morphological+ analysis. This analysis enables the
search for all words on the basis of the headword of each text word.
16 For example, the recording of geographical variations would involve the many
variations between the sources in the tribal lists in Joshua 15-19. The recording would
necessarily involve forming judgment on the data. For example, one would have to
decide which of the many Greek variants should be included and excluded. One would
also have to decide on categories of notes on the content. For example, names with a
similar spelling, form, or content should be linked in the recording (Timnath-Heres in
Judg 2:9 and Timnath-Serah in Josh 19:50, 24:30). One should also decide on a special
notation for place names listed in one source as belonging to one tribe and in another
source as belonging to a different tribe. E.g. Jerusalem is connected with both the tribe
of Benjamin Oudg 1:21) and the tribe of Judah Oosh 15:63; Judg 1:8). An important type
of notation pertains to variations in place names, such as 1 Sam 9:4, where "the district
of Shaalim" is reflected in ll)Luc as "Gaddi of the town Segaleim (= Shaalim)."
383
Plate 1
p]ii:dl--
P]:'Pe 1-
- iH'i--
6
7
\1
[:11]
10
;,
10
11
'IV , ,
II
--
12
12
14
-----
13
--.- -
14
--65--
15
- - - - - -
16
-l'-1i-
17
- - - - -
18
16
11
11
Reconstruction of ll. 5-12

5
II
..
lP
"
9
10
;? cw
II
ci?
12
PLATE 1. One of the two minute silver rolls, II, found in Ketef Hinnom
(Num 6:24-26). By permission of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Israel.
Drawing and transliteration of ll. 5-12 according to G. Barkay, "The
Priestly Benediction on the Ketef Hinnom Plaques," Cathedra 52 (1989)
37-76 (Heb.). Seep. 111.
Plate 3
385
PLATE 3. The large Isaiah scroll from cave 1 at Qumran, 1Qlsaa, col.
XXVIII (Isa 34:1-36:2). John C. Trever, PhD, digital image by James E.
Trever.
Plate 5
387
':'l:J:J c"n:l:J ;-tl;-t' "1'7) ;,np? N':J ;-tl11l7
N':J
N?l) N':J
;-t:J,l7:J l,W'l ;'11;-J' , , , llt> ,:J"li):J N,lj:' ?1p 3
;'l'n1Ntm
,1W'i')? :Jj:'l7;'1 ;'1';'11 1?!:ltZr ;-tl7Jl1 ,;, ?1:::>1 Ntvl' 'l ?1:::> 1 1m1?N? ;-t'-;107)
N"'!:l N':J 1'"ln' ,l17:J ?1:::> 1N,1 ;-t1;-t' "11::1:::> ;,?m 5 ;-Jl7j:':J? co:::n,;-,1
,J"l ;'11;'1'
l'IOn ?1:::>1
,tv:J;-J ?1:::> N,j:'N ;'17) ;,,mNl N,j:' ,7)1N ':'lj:' G
M"I:J ;J:JI!Il
csm ,,:!n
p;, C'71l7? l:llj:'' 1l';-Jl?N
m,
tvJ' 7 ;ntv;,
?:JJ
00
"
,;-
c?tv,,, mfl7:J7) 1?1p m:>:J '7)',;,
r=
mfl7:J7) :;,? ?l7 ;-t:Jl ,;, ?l7 9

1
;'11;'1' 'll"lN ;-JJ;-J 10 ;-J7):J;-J;-J1?N ;-Jl;-J ;'1"11;'1' ,,l7? ,,I)N 'N,'n ?N
;:;
ill71,:J I I 1'l!:l? 1'n?l7!:l1 lnN 1,:JtZJ illil N1?
.rH
J,.....
PP' 1l7nrJ
ill7,, 1,"ll7
?j:'tZJ1 f,Nil ,!:ll7 tZJ?tvJ ?:::>1 pn ln,l:J 0'7)tlJ1 C' '7)'1?l71tZJJ
12
?ill' m?1l1 Ntzr il1p'n:J1
"
::c
.r-
1l71,Tl N1J' j:'Tln:J ' 0
1U'N
nN t4 illl7'"11'
;-J1il' nn nN pn
ll'"l1' nm:m ,,,1 mt, 1;J-r1:l?'1
t3 C'JmJ ml7:Jl1 l:l',il o?o:J

n,1N:J 1il"l7)'7'1 1;-Jl':J'1 fl7U
J1l:!?1 16 ?10..., j:>"l::l O""N };'I 1::11!7nl O'l11:l pn111::11
,.,,1:) ,1:)::! O'NU J:1 15 I>
;,?1lol ,, J'N 1Tl'n1 ,loi:J ,, J'N
?N
N'l) ?Nl 18 1? 1:JtZJnJ 11iln1 O!:lNJ1 l"lll J'N:> C'N1lil ?1:::> 17
mpn,1 1ll7p,,, :JilT:J
TO,n
iltZJl7'1 ?O!:lil 19 ? 1:J1,l7n nm1
?oo J':::l1il'7 17pTOJ1 c:>n tznn ,n:n pJ,, N17 fl7 ;,r.mn pol:l;, 2u
Nl?il
'10:::>
TOni) "ll1il N1?il 1l77)tvn N1?il 1l7"ln N1?il 21 ml)' N17 zo
j:'11:J ilmlil l:l':JlnJ Nil':Jtv1'1 f,Nillln 7l7 :JtZJ1'il 22 f,N

ill17l7 1iln:> f,N
ll17J"1
J'N'7 cJm 7mlil 23 nJll)7 ?il1N:>
C'7)l17
'llL'l7 l:ll l:ll7ll f,N:J 1ll),tv '7:::1 'lN ll7,T ?::1 'lN 1l7Dl '7::1 'lN 24
CNl17n TOp:> il,l701
N,:J 'IJ 1N,l

lnl:J
l:ll,IJ 1NTL' 2G TL'1"lj:' ,7JN1' N1TL'N1 'll'IJ"ln

l:l'llN
N,j:'' ClllJ 0?1:::>7
,!:lO?J:J
7N 25 zs
il7N
,"ll7l N17 tlJ'N1

ill;"J'?J
':::>,, il,nOJ 7N,ll)' ,:11m :J1j:'l7'
;,?J7 27
f,Nil nmp N,1J illil' l:l'71l7 'il17N ilnl77)tZJ Nl? ON ilnl7"1' N17il 28 ,1Jl7'
PLATE 5. The large Isaiah scroll from cave 1 at Qumran, 1Qisaa:

transcription of col. XXXIII (Isa 40:2-28; see Pl. 4) as published in DJD
XXXII (2010). By permission of E. Ulrich and P. Flint.
388
Plate 6
i111'1' i'CK i1.:l
nw 'JM 'M"1V'
1'"" 1i1:l 1'.:li1'C ':!)1m':! 11'0[.,]'0

'i1'1 C".1 ''l.:l
1'C':!W ii1[J.:! 'i1'1 '1'11rt!l' 1'1.:1::1]pi1 K':!1
'l!)':!'C 1'0!%1 1'CW' K':!i .Mi.:l' K?
nc
1',1:0
D..,
1Vif
:pv' 11::!V
C''C 1:lt'1
mn '::Kl 1i'CK YiK[n n-;p 1v
''m
vp:1
C'CK':! 1:l'Wi'i11
c[o
C"K 1)1'CW
n1]:lin:
1<':!1
[o')llt""l; nl]i1' i'CK C1'W l'K
i11n :lin.:l '!) CtU'1 'OW i'.::mi ''OK

10
.nKr 1V''Cttli1
')M"1p]
'1::!J' ';! i'CK'1 'li\1"10i1 1.M!::WK:l i1i[.::l
11:.
MOC:>:>
i11i1' p1niC
'lK':lni1 11'
'n.:l ':li11 1i1.M':! \1"1}-'l' i''i':! '.Mi'OK 'J[1<1 "IMD].Mi1 1::! iWI< ':!Ki!%1' i1.MI<
ii1i1' i'CI< i1:::l [nn))11 'i1'1< .MI< .n[;JIIli) i11ii' .MK
\l'V:l 1:l:::l[M1
it
I<'> ;K"1]:V'1 1''1< ::!pV' :l:l1W' ,, 1::!)1,
.nK :[ 1:1)1 ., 1nl']ii'C ':!pln i'CI<'1 rv

IS
11< '.M':::l
nn n':l1<1 nm
'.MV[1W' mn; ou 1nc; 1nrm] :wn':! ':!a<ie>'
:pv'
111
Yil<
[1.:1)1; '1l .::1.111'11:1; lVDJ m,:,;
]l<ie'' ':!KU i11i1' 'l1K i'CI< i1:::l
[JOI<l "11UK i1111' 1.110; 1iMV'1 0'"1lV j 1'01i'' 11<i' C':::l':!'C c':!tU'C
01'.:11 1'1'1'J)1JW"1 1'1)1.::1 nw "1CM i1.:1)
20
1in:l'1
ttl11p
"
1'11;ru ''riln; j'"1M O'j:"li; OV 1'1'"1.::1., 1J].MK1 1i'1K1 1'.Mif)1 i1)1[1!:"

1)1"1' c,:,-,, .,ll ,.,ln
"11UM., 11<]'1 C'i1CK':! i'CI<':! .noo[rv
.:1"1111 0.:1' 1<'>1
1<'>1 1.::1)1"1' Mj';! C.M'Vi'C C'[ 'DlV ;,:,,:,1
n;cc1 ,,,., '"1n ;,:,

C'l'::! r"1MO mM1 0'1:11
c'n.l' oo 'l11]:lo ':!V1 Cli1J' conio

n')M n.lnl
p1ni'C i1'K i1li1l10["1'
11
:>
25
PLATE 6. The short Isaiah scroll from cave 1 at Qumran, 1Qisab:

transcription of col. XXI (Isa 48:17 -49:15) as published in DJD XXXII
(2010). By permission of E. Ulrich and P. Flint.
392
Plate 10
.,
PLATE 10. Tefillill, 4QPhyl J verso, from Qumran (Deut 5:24-32; 6:2-3),
published in D JD VI (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). See p. 112. By permission
of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel.
393
Plate lOa
;;nr;; 'lll17.lll7 ,71p
ntn ,.,.,u ntn ,.,,:J:J nN

:'nil' ,:J T ':J {1,',1 }'N, ilTil CT'il 117Kil
tnn :; fuii[7.ll] il7.l., illlln" m C"TKii
7.l ck [ntnTil il]'71"Tlil WNil u.,:J 30
[il]iil' 71p
ln7.lll7., unm ct>o,
[K ,)117::1 71:J '7.3 :J,. Ul17.l, "TU7 'lri11.,K
[7.3 C)"n C'i11.,K '7!p llK !.77.3117 ,117
[n]1 ili7l:J WNil ,n7.l ,:J.,
[71:J llK
illlN :J[,)j' 27 ' 35
i11il' ;r;ltn ,117N
[illlK)1 il:J'.,N 'lri11.,K
(,117K .,:J )liN ir.,N ,:J "lll
:'nil' ,:J.,.
[1171 il:J)"}(N) U'i11.,K 40
["1 .. U"W1 i]ll77.l
[nK :'nil' !.7]6117
[il7.l]:,;[:J"T .,]ip
[N il7.l ]:j,:J "T:J
[,7lK1]"1 ., 45
:,.,N :'nil'
K m77ll1
[,:J, .,]p ri
[ilTil C!.7il )
[1,:J"l
50
[Oil il:J'.,N)
[N .,:J 1::1)
[,,:J, "1117]
'n11atil .,:J .l'lK ,'11.)11., 'n1K ilK,,., il7.lil., ilT illl::l:l., il'ii[, yn 'll ao)
.:,., 1::1111 il7lil., ,1llN ,,,. C't1:s7? i17lil"l:l., iltlil? ::10' JW? [C"7l'il .,:J)
I*
55
[il]i:l7lil .,:J nK ii:J'.,K il,::l,tn ' 17.3:17 il"T1Di[l7 m]D ilnKi" [ilfl:J?mx?]
i1)7lii? ynu ':JUN ,11N T"1K::l 1a7ln illl"TD?n ,l!n( [c)DD11[Di11 C'p1ni1)
[
]oo? iiT.l:JnK illl[:J]:-n.,N :-nil' :-n:s ,11[N:l mw? i17ln,7ll1," iln]
[J1:l,K' TP?J]"}, il:J"1n c]
ii:Jl::l 1::1, ii:Jl::l, ilnN c,i! i1:;,:17l ':JUN ,117K
[,117K1 ii:J)"} ::10' i[11K i1Dn1]W? ill1,tll!71 .,K,W' ill1S77lll71 il:l'7.l'
[n:Jr
ii:J? nn? ii:J'n1::1]K m?ac :"nil' ,::1, ,WN:J ii"Ttntl
11::1,
6o
PLATE lOa. Transcription of pl. 10. Deut 5:24-6:3 written in the

following sequence: 5:29-32 (5 lines, upside down), 6:2-3 (4 lines), large
space, 5:24-28 (22 lines).
399
Plate 16
TABULA ACCENTUUM
II. Acantus J)CM!Iici (in libris Psalmorum,
lob. Proverbiorum [D M])

1. Accentus communes (in libris XXI)
A. DislinC'til'i
domini
I.
Sillliq, semper notal fiMm

versus (SOP pdsiiq). ut in
2.
'Atnd,, ut in
J.
Stjtjftd (postpositivus), ut in
4.
SoiUirt. ut in
s.
ZdqijJ parTum, ut in
i,,,
:ij1'1
'"1:jl'1
.:
M''jOridvcl Mir'kd malt-
fHlkatum (Mer'kl cum Mahpik). ut in ..

(cf. I 2), ut in
3.
li;,
4.
i:?-'1
s.
6.
7.
R'!Ji<J'. ut in
8.
fi{Jbii (ante 'AI nib ct SiiiUq),
mognum, ut in .
R'U/ 11 ' mUrrDl (R. cum GCrd), ut in
Zarqti (postpositivus: ante
9.
7.
ul in
Sollill ma'"""' (cl. I 4), ut

in.
li;,
vel Zorqd (postpositivus), ut in . . . .
8.
S'gOJtA), u1 in
:ij1'1
Silluq (cf. I I), ut in .
2.
maxnum, ut in .
6.
A. DisfinC'tivi ''rl domini
R'/Ji"' par11um (post ipsum

occurrit
Ole wcjOr!cJ),
ut in
Pol(ii (poslpositivus), ut m
10.
si sonus apud paenullimam
ut in
'.
)'Ji!J (praepositivus), nonnunquam pro

Ul in.
II.
12.
ut in
13.
vel
14.
Garidjim, ut in .
IS.
Pti:i'r. ut in
"'
i;,
D'/:tf vel Tifii)U prarpositi11um
(praepositivus), ut in ..
10.
II.
i,=;!'1
ut in
9.
Ptizir (d. I 15), ut in ..
/'jarmilr (M.cum
Plstq), ut in .
12.
ifzld
('A. cum Pl-
stq), ut in
B. Conj11nclivi rrl
magnum vel Qarni para
16.
(cornua vaccae), ut in .
mc1xnum (praepositi
vus), ut in .
17.
18.
L'jurmi'h (MUn.O.I:l cum Plslq; ante RcpJ'), ut in ..
19.
MUndb, ut in .
20.
Molrpci/) vel M'huppdk, ul in
21.
Mir'ka. ut in
ut in-.
23.
Dargd, ut in ..
24.
'Az/6 (cum Gerd: Qadm6),
T'l/fQ parvum
vus), ut in .
(postpositi-
26.
Gal,al vel
ut in. . . .
27.
MW/6. ocd cf. I 8, ut in ..
Mir'k6 (cf. I 21), Ul in .
IS.
'11/Uj, ut in .
i,=;!'1
I 19), ul in
16.
Tar/;tci, ut in .
17.
Gal,al vel
(cf. I 26),
ut in . . . . . . . . . . .
18.
M'hupp6k vel
120), ut in . . . .
19.
'Az/6 vel Qadmd (cf. I 24),
20.
&,ililrt parvum, ut in .
21.
(ante Merkl
et Mahpit in syllaba
apena), ut in . . . . .
(d.
(ip,,)
Nota: Lineola (I), quam voc:ant Pdsiq (separator),

etiam ad aa:entus accedit ad significandum eorum
vim disjunctivam.
ut in
2S.
Mund/r (cl.
14.
ut in.
k'Piild (M.
22.
13.
\.=;!'1
Wiirllemlw,.,ische Bilwlanslafl Stuttgorl
PLATE 16. Table of the biblical accents, appended to BHS. Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft (Stuttgart).
400
Plate 17
PLATE 17. A manuscript of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Num 34:26-35:8)

written by the scribe Abi-Berakhatah in the year 1215/1216 (Jewish and
National University Library, Jerusalem, Sam. 2 6). By permission of the
Jewish and National University Library, Jerusalem.
Plate 18
401
GENES. XLIX.
Bill.
101
.,.. U"n Cilia ':
- - - - - - CIJ'IV'"C1
I .,...
--------.,.,.
TIPP t::u-n:n
I'V1I7P
- - - - - - t::lln::r'n
________ ,.,.
CI'IIIC'I
Tl '17.1 ,..,.
on ,.,
:Tn11' l1"11t '1\l
10
I Ul:l'p' 'Z)
MTC'm D3l1 .,..,. ..,
rT17
II
.,.:1.,
II
:..,...rn
..,..,:n
II
P" O'I:P 'IT1'7 trcr
I)
p.,
,..,... 'IT1'7 ft'n
------"17---
-__ - -.. _
.........
..,..._,._, .
VAll.& LICTIOHIC.
c:opolnl 6t
:ltlf'2-p.66.
....... .......... ......
'f7
.,.
"'10
-pOjlnDI
97 ...... -wv ,,,.,.....,,,, ,.,,

.,.,.
J6JIIoU.
...
1!'1'Y'"
...
t:I"'U "1V1 - - - - -
'+ -.an-'"'1'7
liU., "'eCCt
1"!1 D:ll
: r"V'I'IDe J:7.llJP c:n:u
1"0 Cl'l'7
I ;,'lnz) ll:l''
, ______ _
..m
-n.6a.
6t-JI'ft 66.
':1
1JI'Ielf 'l:l
Ill
........ p JOt I . . . ., ..
,.,.....,. 6a. ,. a-nD'+-
:1'
"17
el1:1" ,.,
I t::l'f'
'flfT:h- -----
,, -I'll""
10
n.n 1'=10 pp!"'tn
:-+r-tl
W?--------
... ,,. ... 66. '"7 ,. '97

6a.'t.6f,66, 1a7, 1f7,UI, JJ4o
,...,..,., r.n Til
n.n------r-n. It'D' -...,.._._

- -- ______
,.,., _____ ....,
L,.,.-'f'IP6o,66.
'l'l'1t'lr
-------:'l':l.,::n
,_,-c::Vna
.. _, ...
,... , . , Ml"'lt :"''m'

1
,. t:ll'l"ann- t::llt'Qrl ... ,.,.
':I 1:11111 .,.,.

':1 ClT07'I
)jllP':l
"
a a.
m.-m. ............ ,.. '"' .,...,.. .... 106.4"'-'' ........... ,..,,6.,fiJo6oa.6al,6oo,6os.

6jt,6J6t ._ 70-:rf.,_n(
6 p - -. -W'PI...
IIJo . ., 1 . . . . . . . . IJJ -
...... 0 'jl "47
1 1'
41.. Jia,
m-.,.,lo,,_,os,
C.,. a 67a C - . . . .
rTV . . - ""' , .
'"' " ""' .. m ...,. ...

",.,
-...-,.,., "'1o.
"''P u. ,,., ......,_
--a...._
"1 ....
=-=
....
1147,6n
__ ,.. "_,.,.. 1.,. ..,,.,,.

w:D-..m ..,.7;.,_...., .........
PJN ' '
Tft-rv
.,.. , ,.
f ....
161 -
s.
:vt"D-;voo
, ..
""--CI':Ur:Jll'"'
c::rot-
'A 61 S
....
s...... , ,,ott''''.,.,,..
t'.ro-sa.si.U.7Jn7t., ,._,,..,,....,
,,,_..., 6f9'jl.
rrL
I::PJ"..a7-o.
......
7 -
a."""'"-n-JU<.
C>W- CPI'CI 1 1 1..... I ..-..4 I
- ........... "",. "'a)'"""' ...............
,.... Cl'llr 9!
..... os.
1"'
nt s .,n -''"''''''-'J'";I.II6a.
.... 9o '9o ,..,. 1.,. t,.... 171, IIJ, JOOT, , . _ ,.m ....
*''Of. ...,._., so. .,..,., ,._,_,, .. .,,, ,n.
-U-I::P'llr9'J..
P.'71o'9"o'"'as,oo6, ...... 16f, ... - - IS
c:::aw"'all6,,.u,t7,a.9t7Ja,.al.)6.66.
, . . , , , . , . . , , - . . , , - uL
L,.,. _...,. ,.,_ ,..

7 ICir"'Qrr -
""""..
.....
.,.,_,., pr1n "'
Clll"'aa I Jfo
....
W. "'
'1"11'2 l" '1"'
"!'Y-1-.,....:a ..... , ..., _ .... . . -
.... 'P"'.s--r-
7.......,.,,, ,.-,,....
.... "" ... .6f.
....
,.... .... 6. ,. .... , ..... ,..,.

ol.
lf.tDt .,,. .... ......
110,111, . ,........ , . . . , , . . , . . 7&.
.,...
_...,_ .......... , ...., . - oa .,. 'P ,.._
nL ,.,.
,n.. " ' -
o,6p.lo,us,6IJ 'Do
,n- .. , -
... .........,..,.. l'ftllo'""' ...........

7'..... ..
'D II ,.,.,_,...,.
J'7' . . - J'7' ,.,. I.,.
10. a:ll7 . , . .
j p D - . - 1Lio, ........ u6.
oVo !' Jl.. M . . - an 91 "'I'- l6o I

.... a. 19' "li .,1,6.. ICP p-:-IC tp-m- au .
n.J6.17-t6at ,,._
.... ._, ..........,,6f, ........... .,. sa.a6.1+h
....... , . . - lo,t,OS,tJL
r.n -:-P",. '"' tJ
D'I-D'IC> 9o
r'!l,.. s1 - .st.
PLATE 18. The Kennicott 1776-1780 edition of Gen 49:6-14.
niDI'
",'i'1
,..,
,.J, .,.,K
ili'D 'JK illn' ,=n'"l
1lJ(
,,=n
'DIJ:l ,;n ,.:1-r':J ,,,,
""I mn
l,.:rT r0
,.:n,
tntt::J I(')
,.,1< ,nn Ml< V"TU l'K j:J.J'J.J ,DKil
,.,H:l ,.:n'J
U1)'1< ,IJI'<
'nO,tn
'7M""1r
'11'nc
"J'M -
,,.:n 1n't.J
..
>;,
'RP:vn ...,
1D
,:rT'l
:"'(
"'(
:liJl '\J'>Ic1 '19;;!
,.n
"!7'11!
..,...,.l'!'
"1QM l'D "'(
)>.
""""-">tt
H6
"l&':p{l ...,
"1911'1
a:-oft!-11;1 ''
,...
,...
,o:p;. D'l:l.,l!t' ,..,

"f'D P"1Q Dftl "n>lr-1 r
11'1:PJ:I "" ..
"'7!1! rqp;1 ,
0:
"e
Df!J :;
niDII
Dft' "'( )- IC"el RI:P
,..,.,-">tc Dftl-">tt n'fl:l "'911'1 "' :men
a..,'>lro 1:11'-,fl! ""1f:r0,1!'
aJ;I'I!C"l DJ!Il!
C>
''"VIliJ
o;
.,., vr.-'>tr! "'( ,...
)- """"-'>tt Ml;>ll') "'
,.,.,:MI$1 ,"..," .,,., MIJ1
_.,_,, ,. "'(
;)
Florentin, 2011). By permission of The Haim Rubin Tel-Aviv University Press. The MT (right) and SP (left)
appear on facing pages, with emphasis on the additions in the SP (see pp. 78, 80). By permission of The Haim
Rubin Tel-Aviv University Press.
PLATE 19. Exod 20:13f-20 (MT 20:14[18]-17[21]) according to the Samaritan Pentateuch (edition of Tal-
nw:vn :TI:I"Ul n:ntl
="
miT'
..., IDI:I:V 'ln:n I:I'I:IVo1
"'U '71C , , , ,DI<', M"&'D .,.
, . , , . , ' " , . . " " " IV'QI'I .,
:am
D1T"In DniC
D'U!'JI'Om
c-onn i11)'t:N'l 'J;J nrc 1""JK m.::::nKt "'TDV "TD

rvvn 7
- -<: nnp,') Di1'J \Ml ':IlK ,.,K T,K.J 11'111 O"TO'Jn ,_,PC
D.J"JMJJ O;J'J t.Jll' oi"t'J ,DK P "" UDD ,un /'0 I<':Llt,
n,,, ,,.:n t6 ,.,r< ,.:rm Ktn Kt.J' 1<?1 ,.:nn irn t6 mn DI'.J K":un
,;,,, ,PI<
.,11
lnUI lDPD IJ,K ':nl<
1'11<il i1'ill
,.,1'( I<':Llt, 11<
,.,I< t,:n 'JK ))DIJ' 1'6 ,IJK
n 1<1nn I'<'.JJn not o.,nK on'JK DI'.J
,.,1'<
'DI':J ,;rp
K'.:lJ 1 " a'Jw'J ont>.J'71 oro .JO" U1D'J D'D'Tl "J;:. rn:ro rue ,DP"J\ 'Tll<
'J;:. nK on">K ,;,,., t'D.J
nrut 11D::t onnK .JVD on"J D'PK
,,=n ,.,1< 'J;:. 1.J.'U'i1 WK n.:n
,.,;n 'Jtp nH: 'IU'DI' ,DK'J
nt<.,t'J an'J nr O.J.J'J nm \11' D :u .,
.,1'1< ntn Di1
1MDnn "'n'771 o;:,"'l&li " ' 'U"'lln"' :T':'fn ,,.::w.J D"11'nc.'""' 10 c:1n
--<: a"""'" ow..,. O,J:n:vn '>1c v.u :"1171:11 prnc a:vn '11:1lM"
"Jin _
,.,1'<
u1nn 1n :"1171:1 '>1c 'MI:IIM " prnc nDlM 'l>M c:vn '>::> lln'l J1'7
nm ctn .I'Kn 11nD uvnl' ,-,., nKt t'7n 1l1Cl nt.J;J ni'C un'JK ntil'
c:tKn u';);:.Kn ;:. nn,, nn'J n.ru" '"' lnl<il nK on'JK
;:. U'l'n
;:. .unot ,.w un';)l'< ntn 'Jtp IV< VDI''> unc: D'!JD' Dl< .ni'<Til n'7nn
.n"' UlD;J IJI'Cn linD ,=n'D 0 11M On'JI'< 'J'IP PDI>
,C'.J '>::t- 1 D
U''JK
nnl'<t U'n-,1'< Mlil' ,DK' ,I'K 'J;J Ml< PDI't il.nl< .J,P
'UZ) -,:nU'I?Vt uvo.,t 1'?1'< un'JK ntn
'J::t nH:
mo>
-;,
'>1c o:vn '>1c :"1171:1 "U>IM " mzu 11> on'>l<n
nno1n DP n'J:JKl oo'Jp nn.Jn ,...,. ,n'Jr< mil''J n1'Jv

n'Jvn1
y,K.:J PDPn Kl.:JD
.,n1<
,.::w.J 1<1nn ,nn .l"il'JK mi'l' 'l!:J'J
7.::n ,.. --<: o::tl' ':no rn1o n'Jr< 'Jl'K 'n':un 'J1D ilTGJ.J .:JI'n JPDn
,.-,;w nan D"'T'!'J'Jn nK D'K,t ,!)ll'n 'Jtp nan m'npjw nac l'DI' cy.'1
>
tf7
.-
0..0
.....
'i::l
i5"
11c;C'o"r1
.II>.TI,
4oCA.I.Io\TH<;_n 1
,'
XONio.lt:Y"f"'
''18NC",._6'f"'-'N"'<'I"I""'
td.. ..hUt
'-EWN u;:A.J!NT'"(lo4n"-.
NH
11::ror>f
r'"""'
H"'(.A'"'(,N8!iE
..
e/IJo."-MOIS:""'fTOY.
.....
..
..,..,,,._,. O,C:....0.'"("Tr!J
CINJoo."(TT'"(A.rUit"",..._H
K/'"1
'Tbl"il
Jd.Jt\r.i(flHC .. NMEA.Xn>tieyt""!"JC/-O"f"'T1?"'
"'"t! rr-.N!.
CUJp6yl;6'fJVI.O'"( ,
e1cenq i
..
we
a,unOY,A."(TO'f:JV..IIU'
K"'lffi.I>..ENC'"'O)'
nory
Nl..'-U_H t<,t..J KCMT....)'T'Y
'-l')o.fXO N"l<;.,l E.tt'
CEN l:yorcu4E.I)"'("nih('J
K1,1 ,.: ci'e7HCE'N..: ';

K,_T <:1">4
Joo.non OCUJfiOl'A.f"Vil,.;.
xr-,,.....,..._c,O.,
N"TWJV.J'I.
>b,AA ... p!CCA,
KI<-IEMOJE.h.WI( ,....,..,...
O"f'"-?
... tWO
NH
..yit,A'"' u T
fi"CtNA,'("royK,.II O
c,
'\
PLATE 20. Codex Vaticanus (Cod. Vat. Gr. 1209 or B) of the

Septuagint (1 Sam 17:44-18:22) from Bibliorum 55. graecorum codex
Vaticanus 1209 (cod. B) denovo phototypice expressus iussa et cura
praesidium bybliothecae Vaticanae, pars prima, Testamentum Vetus, vol. I
(Mediolani: Vlricum Hoepl, 1905) 333. See p. 133.
'Tl.u;:ro..,Nt'JTO'("Kifi;.l-ne
A."(O
TUtn0>-4
J;(1"1n
.!>..
1.1
OIC)..Itcc-ywll<.w"htli
N tlc.ji..l
,EH"'-O":'H
1.fHEK19:N/>o.JAOiol
"''fTP')""
eiCTJ>t<_J-;..10
'rT.i:.CKC'(If..:,y-rci"'(
.._..,,-.
H' ,
NT,_Cn ..
........)'fii ..T . . "'-
'"K/IJo.TI!'n
J"'U)..,,........._o
..'Tl>
WC.I'xl<loo.fUJ N'l(.a;,t
..
c.'T 6"
{
HHKENE;NT!,UcKtf'o
Y"-OCK/IJo.IEn
-;-
Nl..Toc-'"'(TU)Nt0.1
:-fr'ON:
onJcW.,:_"'(TWN lwct!J
li
Toy:t<.itei
.... It'
fJA.N "'TUI
o ...
.CEN i.-r:.,..O.nd.l
Jo..'(TOYK"'I
nECTHEn ....
C!fNEn, on
.&.Joo.yel..._..
O""II.A.o
rd.,,:p..u[C'Tlo
onOA.t'MacK,:Inlr,.,
0....
n,_C,._H rttOTI<'
o:rr"No.:ytd:]-ro,ca,
..4,
r;-otC}IFTl'IN_OJC:Toy
nA.fel-4 loOI>o.H CJ......_ncb.;
l.IIOCO'"'("I< .. \a..wc-wT..._
,\),oKT&NWCI!IK,._IJoo.+
K"I'ICEICEK<"Cth.. t'rN
..
...won ...r"
f
TJo::'leWCJC}..H,NUJNE'I,
.. I>.
IJOf,E'(O.
!Qo..li!NA.dr a.ntllo.IE ..,,_
"""!". oc .. E N
U'Z. rf'o-F.>i"1,.. 'J;
T<l"'f,Ol'r""'O'J"
KTHNI'CI NTt<Cr-Hc
"'.....
:;-
404
Plate 21
IEPEMIAI
1 1 To eijpa TOO 8eoo, 8 lye'JieTO hci Ieeepia'll Td'JI TOO Xehtiov bt TWV
leeeQYII,
lv A11a8wfi b yfj BevLap,,
lyevtJlh7
uro
fJeoo
aVt-011 E'JI
Iwata vloo
IovlJa
3
T[Ha1taWe1taTov lv Tfj {JacnkU,. a1rroo. 31eai lyiveTo b
.
Iwa1e'l' vloo Iwata
Iov&
b6e1et:hov l-rov;
Too l:ede1ela vwv Iwata
Iov6a
T*
Iegovb Tqi 'l'CEJ.m'rcp I''Yf"{.
;
'Kai lybeTo
1tveloo
aVTO'JI "Ilea TOO p.e nUaaL (JE iv
I
Inscriptio
B-8-239 A-410 V-26-46-130' -233-449-544 --U-198

Q-538; 0
u{Jepcar; 62; U(!Sp&OV TOV "(!O!pTJTOV
106 Aeth; necxpfTTe&a &S(!epwv 36-407 613 8yh ( + "aTa TTJII e"l5oan TWV
e{JOOpT}'I(()VTQ); Aoyoc U(!Bp&OV VWV %EAx&OV (del. tiiOtl %BAx&OV C) et &(!Spear; 88
1 Too
1 1 om. To Chr. VI 14 XI 439 I TOO Oeoo, 8 lybno] + 0
Orovl ""(!WV Arab Chr.XI 439; om. TOO Chr. VI 14 I o lye11no] o eyevTJOTJ
Chr.XI 439; om. 0 Chr. VI 14 I lnl lse.] en "7esp&a11 A; near; cee. Chr.cll;
en& T011 U(!. 87 I Xelxlov] +or; 7J11 PsAth.IV 289 Or.iat IX 137 I "aTq)"n]
+ 0; "aTO&"TJO'S& s I A11a0w0] aOa{}w{} 198; avaOwp 613; aOw{} 36* 87
-239 130 233: of. llu 3617 397
2
wr; 22C62 534 = Sixt. I lymjOT}]
eyevtro L'-130'-233 26 Tht. (=II 1268P) I Myor;] pr. 0 534; neor; 544 I
TOO Osovl xvecov Q-V-26-106-239-449-534-538-544 0 Aath Arm Eus.c.
Marc. 2,4 Tht.olt = m-1.; om. TOO A 51-62-130' Tht. I near; ath-011] near;
ueepca11 Eus. Tht.clt; ad me Aeth: cf. ; > Bo Arm I om. Tai'r; 26 Or. III 2
Tht.clt I Iwa(e)/a B-S-239 A]O'&OV rei.: cf. a a. 221111 251 a 331 42t 43t I
441 51n Bar. Ia et Thack. p. 162 I vloo Apwr;] pr. Tov Or.;> 410 I Apwr;
Or.] appwr; 91 46; apw11 (appw11 62 544) V-544 0 l-198 Arm = m: cf. 26a
8oph. h Regn.IV 21111 1a-u Par. I 3u II 33toll 11 I hovr; Te&a"acds".]
tr. 88 Arm = m I lv Tfi {Jaa.] TTJt; {JaO'IM&ar; 534 Arm
8 Iwa(s)la1
B-8 A]O'&ov rel.: cf. 1 I lwr;1] + O't111TSM&ar; 8 0 L'-130' Aeth Arm Or.
III 2 (TTJt; O'V11Tk&ar; TOt/)=
pr. "a' L'-8e&.130'-613; 1r'l2' 106 239 I
TOO B] > rei.: cf. 25a 261 39t 43t t 46t 1 51u I Isds"la B-8 26]-"cov rei.: cf.
26t 28tt 35t 461t 52t to u et Thack. p. 162 I Iwa(eJla2' B-8-538 V-26
-46-544]-a(eJcov rei.: cf. 1 I om. leeovaal1Jp 544 I ntpnTcp p.] p. Tw
nepnTW 0-233 verss.P = m
4 om. "Kat 51-449 ArmP I near; ath-611 B-S
-239-410 L'-130' Or.ill 3 Tht.P: cf. 1] neor; pe rei. (Eus. in Is. 44u) =
of. 11 11 I fin. B-8-410 407 87btl.613] + M)'W11 rei. (Eus.) = m: of. 23al
33t7 11 46u
6 lled Tovl "(!111 GregNyaa.II 1184 I pe] epe Greg Nyu.;
as 46- 534 I ad 0 ] pe 534 I b 1t0clU;I] e" 1t01l&ar; A 46 534 Aeth Arab
C'-7";
m;
m:
1 1 To
- Xslxlov] TO e{Je' "a' ac locnac e"ooae&r; ).oyoc ceeepwv
V&OV xelxcov Syh (01 ).') Or.m 184 (cc"al na11Tet; avnrpdw1JO'a1111)
2 TOO Oeoo]
o e{Je' "vecov Syh emend. xvewr;>
8 lwr; T7}r; alxpalwalar;] a' (ewr;) pnoc"eamr; Syh Hi.lat cccomnee alii voce consona11)
8 0 D11 dianOTa "veu]
PLATE 21. The Gottingen edition of the Septuagint (Jer 1:1--5): J. Ziegler,
Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum

graecum auctoritate societatis litterarum gottingensis editum, val. XV (2nd
ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht (www.v-r.de).
Plate 23
406
..
,_,. _ ...... D..,. . .
.... -
--
*P,
_----.-... -
- .......... ,,.._
_, _ ... -
,.
........
, ..........
,....,..
__,....,_,_....trY.,.
..... ,....._.,._.. _
.,."".,_.,.. .... ...,....... ....,._ ..... ,...., .,.........

.....
_...
....
PLATE 23. MS Berlin Or. Fol. 1-4 of the Prophets, number 150 in the
collection of Kennicott 1776-1780 (Isa 1:1-4). By permission of bbk, Berlin
I Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz I Art
Resource, N.Y.
Plate 25
408
J,.5
lr
I}
"
Jhr m
...
'
'
'
PLATE 25. MS Ambrosianus (Milan, Ambrosian Library, B. 21 Inf.) of the

Peshitta (Lam 3:41-5:22), from: Translatio Syra-Pescitto, Veteris Testamenti
ex codice Ambrosiano (Milan: Pogliani, 1876-1883). See pp. 151-52.
Plate 26
PLATE 26. Second Rabbinic Bible (Miqra 'at cedolot), Venice: Bomberg,
1524-1525 (Gen 42:3-20). Seep. 71.
409
Plate 27
410
O!;:t
ifl1 ;
II
-
:O'jt$
-ol ,';!n,
\"C"",.
\;r
.JTI
1'1''1'1
Mt$1
.
;,.:b';lc r- .... ;
r-s
...
\TI
,.,.
)t,0
c
...
1r T
P:u?, mlt.'
-
_r: I
".' I
mu?
Ff
YT 'f
;,.:,ft.' n
T 'I'
r'T-ii':P
:i1f;'7
'oj?'-3
; ,)1;1
'I'
23
I 1
_,--
.lll.,.'
M9P1
'K:'
,;;1;1
,):,1M::l
.J-1"1-;
<C"''."I
'1'-
"I
'-:1
-,cK';l
I ,JPOTb6
.J"'TI
I '
.,?.1'-
:. ;
'-'nc-nN
o
o:
"'
I:
o:
, -
0. .
_,...
,_1l;1:'!9
-,cli6 1 e
J11i?P:P
o
,.,
..
1ft
1,l}:p
,Or:T::t
1?
17
:'9;,
-op
Mj?_
23 ...
i-.2 CG..,;
rl),.pt;;)::t1
C?-
I:'J'??
,,,1i1 I Cp 23, 2 ... + pov
4 VarG .w.ll+-l'll$ 16 JlMSS m:lp i
.,'('
I?+
i)
m1t MSS !I min
i 8 -+'T:Il':liJ.
21 frt add I 23 - frt adr:l I 24 1 frt ,, e'J7'D1 I Cp 23, I ins

cf 47,28
dl c Ill I S j6 1 1JVOe' 6
(cf {]); ...1 M' (cf 11) I 6 'pro
10 I frt '::l:p; cf 18 In I frt c &1
112 ins c 11 1? 113 I frt c ...
(iTTElbi)
l"o() d).
b-b
tt?;,
I
I
I
PLATE 27. BH (3rd [7th] edition: Stuttgart, 1951): Gen 22:18-23:13. See
pp. 350-54. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (Stuttgart).
411
Plate 28
1,10-21
0
C"J9
: ilib17 C17
11'
-:
10
,-
, ..
niin
:;
,-
<"
::
/It
'
IT T
'.'.J''
'('
'('
:t-
c-11
1N:Jn
5" T
\T ' "
11
TT
ni'l1
'/"
.,. -: -
bot?"l
u
11.\$
ao.,. . l
ilNJiZi
.JT : T
:
:
'
1:
1:bm

''
-AT
'.'
" T
.r:-
\T
.J
f'
\T ; IT' :
<"."
15
\'o'
' T
a T
..t
/T
17'1
: 17'1:1 1,,n
11
'
.J'."
: T
\-T
t T
\'.'
Mm 2209.
: .r:
liMp sub loco.
II 12 I c Ms S '"')? II b prp
II 18 I c CQ" pc Mss sw::l cf
21
n-1tl'
'
'
fT
T -:
: I'
1)0:'::11,
'
r:-
1s
19
:
17
ITTI-
b1":lNM
UMm 2208. ttMm 2l38.

1095. "Gn 38.15.
- :
, .J',"
< ".'
'.'
''
J'ei:l
: e:
'.' .J'.' '
AT
S -
, ..
16
'/''
'
<"
AT
11
12
T.F
i!,;.v.in
11 >
:'1 . :1
- :
I:wJv cf 26/27.
QI?i-,
A".'
"Mm 1092.
\-: T
'
zo
toMm IS44. uMm 33S. UMm
II 15 CQ" + fliU7:J C::lnn7:J::lN II 17 I

II 20 QJsa: 'rr.l; I
(hpgr) 1 II b prp
PLATE 28. BHS: Isa 1:10-21. See pp. 351-55. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft
(Stuttgart).
Plate 29
412
ESTHER iliON
0
' ;i
i.i
"71,. :.1 1
17P.iJ I 11:?,-W=? Cr.J;;t

i.
"1Tv1 C"?Jn1tl:'l
I'' T
-,'
1-
01tl I
.r
AT T
.J ' '
\T T
:'lf.lW?J
',"
. ,!:l,ON . TnN . C'j:''1:1' iilO'C1 ;i '0':::1 ':1'1 [ I : I ]

:o: '0':::1
:::111, ':1'1 "'Tn1 . !Z71,11DMIIC .
1:1 'P.':;J '\n v s TR I prec A 1-17 G (lit) I prec A 1-18 GAT (lit) o 'P.':;J '(.1715
TR I Kai rytvno
wi; /..oyou; tottQut; fV
G (GAT) (assimctext) I In diebus V (facil-styl)
S TR I 'Apm:;rp!;ot G (substit) I
+
(facil-styl) +
GAT (assim) I Asueri V (assim)

G (substit) I >GAT V
S TR I ottoc; (>
S I > G (abbr) I f'wo;
GAT V (substit) I !171::1'1 N:J,170 '1171 TR (lib)

G GAT
v TR
s (assim) -i
V (facil-styl) I
(GAT) I
on
2 C[.!i;J
s (TR) (amp!)
I> GAT
fflpoviaHT] G (interp) I quando sedil La V S
T 5 h (interp) I :::11'1'0' ... N17:J "'T::I TR (lib)
(V) S I > G
(facil-styl) I in tribunali regni sui La (assim-cultur) I :10,10'1 :1'0,1::1 ,17 TR

(amp!) ::-TT:;I::t TJ7tlui=i! TR Ts 11 I rv l:ouamc;
rrt'>I..EL G (facil-lex) I > GAT
(facil-styl) I Susa chitas regni eius (exordiumfuil) V (lib-seman)

(differ-gram)
+ 3 ;:.,'???'? Wi'W
(G) GAT T 5 h I
!-(y{tf..T]V GM''
w'lo; ![Jil..cll<; wl TOL;
v s TR rh
v s TR
1'JiF-':fl'? v s TR
(amp!)
fHVEOlV G (lib) I TDL<; npxmm GAT (abbr) I
S TR I > G GAT (facil-styl) I forti.uimis V (assim-styl)

1'1it!7p::t (rh) I tolt; (llrpoiiJV ICUL
I> GAT (facil-styl)

I
''!J
+ ')fl C'PT;llliliJ
ICUL tol<; apxoumv nov
ompurrii>v G (lib-synt) I !Cal ol ilpxovw; ni>v xwptiJv GAT V (facil-styl) I

,mC\!>O:ut
N'::l''!:) ,17 JlOO"'T 1'1:::1,1 TR (lib)
,mcu=o'a'a o<.a.l.ua S
(amp!) I
PLATE 29. BHQ: Esth 1:1-3. See pp. 355-57. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft
(Stuttgart).
Plate 30
413
17-12
7
'1''1'1
Ill
1-
b,-n
D''.:IM
.,,
Yl'l'-
YIIYI
lot'l'
Jl
o.;.nc-rac
whui
'1'\
rht
r
'YI_I_
'";t-W,
.JI
.J\1
....
-'1'
'Ill
-.-
.JI
'I' I
\"T
U'rn
[g)
,eM'
.. -
D',J
'JJ..
,.'1'
........., .... "
D"1Dl) "itCl) ,"1t' d-Jn ,,.n1:'1

l"11lbr
,
10
II
.... ' - ........ l
''
:1:1']
mC'?
'
'
_ 1
.,..
., .,.
mc11-s OJ.' U':+,ac.rn1r-1

r
'W'1
"'
0'11 D'M',C :lt,m D'''M .n1\;y 'rn7:lt' :n:'1'

'I'.,
\Tr""
.,.,..,.
'tf
_,
'"''
7 "iP,l ul ljp!j,...,.cu 11"' 111: 1a,J .- l...:.. G>.Mrp;....cll 1 11 lloJJill'4' I

0n
111
I
t..a-'11 ,
eNe 0.101 1 eN ptd 1 r - 11
10 "n) e
'II
fl" > pron ,,.,) e r - '11 1> 11
> I v,
"a"'"'"G :J'1n1 ... 1 e,.
a,1nP1-D"'"I
.lUll rpCyc,wtU " ..ns1n1 _
12 "Ja
.,,,coiUIJftltNmt'llmtll
.. DI.,...num "";snJnwa _
aJ,.,.
7 ,...,,, lw
T1 , . . . ,
....
11m .. pet! I a'" I IH 11M; a[J
I ,,ntn) IH n,n,
IH
"-PU) 1... :tWpo)
l1-a ,;,., I
bkr 19o nr; ob I>Oo mu; bKel lb 1- ,.,.,,Vol II I 117 (omn nr-lt<nnl; (cf YoiNohl; Rul>i .... loc; (cfScphDt I
i blkr 19a F;cbi>OoMOP;bltctlbM lnD

10 ..:; pr I
..,.., IH I.e I \Jw a'lllj IH o,o ,,.,.,JIH um
IH
;.,\n ,.,D,) IH ,,.,, 11
IH
IH
IH
12 .,., IH u
,,.,I
n,,,.
7 na-1 K
(pm); JO 9J 96 ISO lpml; KRG

, ...) G (lcb) ,D.
It
12
RG
-
'101 1 -
II
,,U,
!; 9J
181 1; 93; KG (mill
>11......
10
U'
-.........
- ' " - 'ol
p
'""f"!'-
,..,;de........,,...ea.-.
_,.,_
K tsoll -
K (lUll
""'""')
:D ;ID"W' :5 11D"'11 7
l'l'DG:I:11!am.
I
;,01"2'1
, .., :t;t , ,..,
14 p D-tl cf l.- I y I IU......,. - I

NloniiUI
proWcm of Ut
11 111 CODdt; d J.41 Dl 32
1'dlleal;aot
a','""
,..._ 1 ,,.._ ,,.., ,,.... ,.,., U.W
........
r ,.,. ",,.., r.p
"'
... t ... rotiM'r_
...
..., (d .. thiW..,_ ....
96 .,pro ra1
.,..,,,..,.....,.
. _ _ 7'"-lcw
I
K (sol),.,.,
'U'tnl K
11
96 I SO (pro); KRG (IIlli)

tO ,.,. 96 lpml
"ratll'l41r-frtlt 11
..
. ,
12
n 1 n JrW'J i'r'W1 ... tlJ :r'Jr n'\m1

n-ur.t
.. , , .
, II"Wil ,. . .
PI'"") ...,., ,...,...
J.4 1
'":"1; .,o: ., '" 7 'an rw.!lft.:a .,2'PII na
... :I : ., :
w:.
....
l'l!lft'\:"1 f)l
2110-:
""'r
11 (..
l'J a"W) 1 _a') HI 1
Ta
, ..._ .,. :a't ;'"'Jw.nU 12 14 :a"t .. l., .7 .. 6,'1
:O'ISDJIU
PLATE 30. Hebrew University Bible (Isa 1:7-12), from: Goshen-Gottstein,

HUB, Isaiah. See pp. 357-59.
Plate .n
414
>-
'L
:Y
,y
....
,
....
)(
"
1.-
1.,
'::t
.,:::.
)( w
J
1 ....... J
..._,_. w.... 4\
""""'
K
N
tl
r:J
,
4
...,
"
1 J
'"fz
-m
(7
..,.,
_j
, :J
,lf!f' '
_g
/(/1
'
tz
""'\
C)
,'
1
'f'
:q
"" 1 f "w
51
.,. /
f5
/}
J
r y !! /4
'
1'
'
.,
j
11
!J
Development of the Hebrew script: I. Gezer Calendar; 2. Mesha atele:

3. Siloam inscription: 4. 7th-century B.C. seals: S. Early 6th-century oatracon from
Arad: 6. 2nd century B.C. Leviticus fraament: 7. Medieval Samaritan bookhand
PLATE 31. The development of the early Hebrew script, from: J. Naveh,
Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and
Palacography (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987), fig. 70. By permission of
tlw Magnes Press, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
'J
j II ; n IJ Jl II
11 , II ,.
A
"
1
, ',." "
,,,.
., ., b.,
.._
,)1
'll"i
PIOUUI
I.
All !ICI"ipts were lraced from phOiolfapbs of natural size witb tbe
exception of liDe 2, trac:cd from a reduced pbotoarapb.
PLATE 32. The development of the square script, from: F.M. Cross Jr., "The
Development of the Jewish Scripts," in Essays in Honor of W.F. Albright, 137,
figure 1. By permission of F.M. Cross, Cambridge, MA.
Empire. From Papyrus Lupareosia, CIS (pars uc11ndal 1: I, 146 A. 8,

Tab. xvu. Ca. 375-350 a.c. A script of Ibis character wu tbe
type of tbe formal Jewish band.
2. An Aramaic vulpr c:unive of tbe early tbird century
B.c. from EJYPt. From tbe EdfO Papyrua published by Sayee-Cowley,
PSBA 29 (1907), Pb. l, D.
Une J. An Archaic: proto-Jewisb baad of tbe midtbird century
B.C. From an unpublished manuscript of Exodus from Qwnrin
(4QEx') . The acripl includes letter fort111 wbic:b ultimately evolve
into tbe early Jewiab cunive cbanlcter.
4. 1be proto-Jewish formal baad of tbe late tbird c:eotury
'' '"''!11\""'"'"'_;.:t ,......
a.c. From a IIWiuscript of Samuel (4QSam) published by the writer

iD OftiQ, pp. 147-72, esp. Fit. 6 and Fia. 1. 1.2.
5. The proto-Jewish formal hand of ca. 200-175 a.c.
From an unpublished manuscript of Jeremiah from QumrAn (4QJer') .
6. An ."-rchaic or early HamonAean semiformal script of
ea. 17 S-125 a.c . From a manuscript of Qohelet from Qumrin
(4QQob") published by J. Muilenburs. BASOR 135 (Oct. 1954),
pp. 20-28.
UM 7. An Arcbaic: or early Hasmonaean semiformal script of
ea. Jn-125 B.C. From n manuscript of an unknown work from
Qumrln (4Q
liturJiques A) to be published by J. Slarcky.
&Ul.Y ARAMAIC AND PROTO-JEWISH SQIPn
;.;M\\ \, \) ':S'\'\ ""
\\ ";:.!l .,. e;,.., t\"' '"' 1\"1\
1. The cluaic:al Aramaic: c:unive of the late Perman
J\}l""
\!J\ S) "'"',"
tt'" hr
HJJ 'J.IJ I:\\\ i) JJ 3 bb "' ,, """"' .."" "' 4
""".,.,, vvY ;:,..,j, ,..,.. '"l \tu Db i
CC \\ ihll""" bb "" "'' ..,."" ,,
,,. s
r ,. '" .. ; ,. ,. .. -' '
hJI-=-t!:'..,,,,.r1-.o"
LL\l
1..11
,_,
""
;;;
'U
E>
GLOSSARY
accentuation (accents) musical-exegetical instructions for the reading of the
biblical text ..... pp. 62-5
Accordance
computer program for biblical studies, among other uses ..... p. 24
A(leppo) codex
..... pp. 44-5
manuscript of m vocalized and accented by Aaron Ben Asher+
ancient versions
Hebrew texts
ancient translations of Hebrew Scripture based on different
Aquila pre-Hexaplaric+ revision of Greek Scripture (approximately 125 CE)

..... pp. 143-4
autograph
the copy written by the author of a composition
Ben Asher system of vocalization+ and accentuation+ of m by the Ben Asher

family of the Tiberian branch of the Masoretes+ ..... p. 44
Ben Naphtali vocalization+ system of m by the Ben Naphtali family of the
Tiberian branch of the Masoretes+ .... p. 44
Bible Works
computer program for biblical studies, among other uses ..... p. 24
Biblia Hebraica (BH) series
critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (BH, BHS,
BHQ) ..... pp. 350-57

Cairo Genizah geniza/1 ("storage area" for religious documents that are no
longer in use) in the synagogue of Fus.tat, Old Cairo
Cambridge edition
cancellation dots
canonization
critical (diplomatic+) text edition of 1\3 ..... p. 134

dots indicating the deletion of letters or words ..... p. 203
acceptance of books as authoritative writings
computer module presenting a detailed comparison of m and 1\3,

available in the Accordance, BibleWorks, and Logos computer programs ..... p. 135
CATSS
chapter division the division of the text of Scripture into chapters, established
around 1204-1205 by Stephen Langton ..... pp. 49-50
closed section
colophon
..... open and closed sections
note by a scribe that provides autobiographical information
conjectural emendation suggestion by a scholar to replace the known

readings+ with a new one presumably contained in the original text ..... p. 328
corrections of the Scribes group. of corrections by the Scribes (soferim+)
mentioned in the Masorah+ ..... p. 59
Glossary
418
critical apparatus notes under the text providing a selection of variants+ to the
main text - p. 347
critical edition scholarly edition of a composition or manuscript, usually
containing a critical apparatus
daughter translations
secondary translations- pp. 133-4
de Rossi collection (1784-1788) of differences between Masoretic+ manuscripts

-p. 37
Dead Sea Scrolls
- Qumran manuscripts
deuteronomistic (Dtr)
Deuteronomy (D)
presumed revision of biblical books in the spirit of
diplomatic edition edition that presents the text of a manuscript without

changes to the base text
difficult reading
dittography
division
DJD
- lectio difficilior
erroneous doubling of a letter, letters, word, or words - p. 224
- word division; verse division; chapter division
Discoveries in tile Judaean Desert (official publication of the Dead Sea
Scrolls)
redundancy created by the combination of different readings - p. 225
doublet
doxology
Dtr
-+
words of praise (doxa) of God
Deuteronomistic
early Hebrew script script used in the First Temple period, followed by the
paleo-Hebrew and Samaritan scripts, and different from the square script+
- p. 207
easier reading
reading rejected in the evaluation+ of readings+ in favor of the

lectio difficilior+ - p. 275
eclectic edition edition presenting the reconstructed original+ composition by

selecting elements from all known sources together with emendations+
-E:fectronic toofs heading introducing references to the electronic sources
relating to textual criticism
Elohistic Psalter section of the book of Psalms (Ps 42-89 [83]) in which most
occurrences of the Tetragrammaton+ have been replaced by Elohim
emendation
- conjectural emendation
evaluation of readings
extraordinary points
final letters
comparison of merits of different readings .... p. 269

para-textual+ notation in m .... pp. 51-2
final forms of mem, nun, ?ade, pe, and kaph in the square script+ ....
197
ga 'yah
accent+ sign indicating a secondary stress in the word .... 63
419
Glossary
genetic variant
165, 168
gloss
variant reading deriving linearly from another reading -
pp.
short note explaining difficult or obsolete word - p. 260
Gottingen edition
handle sheet
critical (eclectic+) text edition of - p. 135
uninscribed sheet at the beginning or end of a scroll - p. 194
haplography
omission of one or more adjacent elements that are identical or
similar - p. 222
Hebraism unnatural elements in a translation from Hebrew deriving from
slavish reproduction of the Hebrew source text
hemistich
half of a stich+
Hexapla six-column Scripture edition of the Hebrew and Greek texts by Origen
(middle of the 3'd century CE)- p. 145
homoioarcton
"identical beginning"; type of omission ..... p. 222
homoioteleuton
HUB
"identical ending"; type of omission- p. 222
Hebrew University Bible- p. 357
interchange of letters
letters- p. 357
interpolation
inverted nunim
interchange of graphically or phonologically similar
exegetical addition added to the body of the text- p. 260

para-textual+ notation in m ..... p. 51
Jerome -Church Father Jerome (Hieronymus), translator of the Vulgate+,

prepared in 390-405 CE - p. 152
Judean Desert texts Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical and non-biblical
texts found in the Judean Desert, especially at Qumran- pp. 93-111
kaige- Theodotion anonymous pre-Hexaplaric+ revision (probably 1st century
BCE) of Greek Scripture ascribed to Theodotion+ ..... p. 142
Kennicott collection (1776-1780)

manuscripts - p. 37
Ketef Hinnom
111
Ketib
of
differences
between
Masoretic+
find-site of two silver rolls containing the priestly blessing - p.
reading replaced by the Qere (mentioned in the Masorah parva+) - p. 54
L(eningrad Codex B19A)

Ben Asher - p. 45
lectio brevior
p.277
manuscript of m vocalized and accented by Aaron
"shorter reading"; "rule" used in the evaluation+ of readings+ -
lectio difficilior "more difficult reading"; "rule" used in the evaluation+ of

readings+ - p. 275
420
Glossary
literary (editorial) variants (groups of) readings+ that were produced at the
literary growth stage of the biblical books
Logos
computer program for biblical studies, among other uses
Lucianic text post-Hexaplaric+ revision of Greek Scripture attributed to Lucian

(approximately 300 CE)-+ p. 146
majuscule
Masorah
-+ uncial
apparatus of instructions for the writing and reading of m ..... pp. 65-70
Masoretes scribes who wrote the notes of the Masorah+ and often also other
components of m ..... p. 26
Masoretic handbook collection of observations on the Masoretic notes and
orthography of m ..... pp. 68-9
Masoretic Text (m) medieval continuation . of an ancient textual tradition
(proto-Masoretic texts+)-+ pp. 24-6
matres lectionis vowel letters

facilitate the reading -+ p. 109
added to the consonantal framework to
midrash exposition adding an exegetical dimension to the plain meaning of

Scripture
metathesis
transposition of two adjacent letters-+ p. 232
MiniJ at Shay
..... p. 37
a Masoretic handbook+ containing a collection of variants+ of m
minuscule manuscript
Greek manuscript written with lowercase letters -+ p.
133
Miqra 'ot cedolot ..... Rabbinic Bibles

Mm (Masorah magna) apparatus of Masoretic notes in the upper or lower
margins listing details mentioned by way of allusion in the Mp+-+ p. 67
morphology
form of words (category of grammatical analysis)
morphological analysis
Mp (Masorah parva)
margins -+ p. 67
Nash papyrus
Neophyti
analysis of morphological form of words-+ p. 378

main apparatus of the Masorah+, written in the side
early papyrus of the Decalogue-+ p. 111
-+ Targum Neophyti
non-aligned texts
texts that are not exclusively close to other texts-+ p. 109
nomistic change or addition intervention in the text based on the legal sections
in the Torah (nomos)-+ p. 252
OG (Old Greek) translation
OHB
reconstructed original text
..... p. 129
Oxford Hebreu1 Bible edition-+ p. 363
Okhlah we-Okhlah
one of the Masoretic handbooks+-+ p. 68
Glossary
421
open and closed sections division of the text of m into "major" and "minor"
sections separated from one another by means of spacing -+ pp. 48, 198
original reading reading presumably contained in the "original" text as
opposed to later (changed, corrupted) readings
original or determinative text(s)
putative original form of the text ..... p. 167
orthography spelling, particularly referring to the inclusion or exclusion of

matres lectionis+
paleo-Hebrew script ..... early Hebrew script
paragraphos sign horizontal line written between sections ..... p. 200

para-textual elements all elements in texts beyond letters, vocalization+, and
accentuation+-+ pp. 47-62
parenthesis signs
sigma and antisigma enclosing words to be omitted -+ p. 204
pesher (pl.: pesharim)

Qumran community
Peshitta
actualizing Scripture commentary written by the
Syriac translation of Hebrew Scripture-+ p. 150
pisqah be'
a' pasuq
section division in the middle of a verse ..... p. 50
Polyglot editions multilingual printed editions presenting the Hebrew texts

and early translations in parallel columns ..... p. 71
pre-Samaritan texts Qumran scrolls that are very similar to the Samaritan
Pentateuch+ (lll), one of which presumably formed the basis for lll -+ pp. 9093
proto-Masoretic (proto-rabbinic) text(s) forerunner of the Masoretic Text+
lacking the latter's vowels+, accents+, and Masorah+-+ pp. 23-4
Qere reading mentioned in the Masorah parva+ replacing the Ketib reading -+ p.
54
Qumran texts Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical and non-biblical texts
found at Qumran ..... pp. 93-111
QSP (Qumran Scribal Practice) scribal practices applied to a group of texts
found at Qumran ..... pp. 100-105
Rabbinic Bibles (Miqra 'ot cedolot) early printed Bible editions including
medieval commentaries and one or more Targumim+-+ pp. 71-3
RBl-2
reading
..... Rabbinic Bibles+

detail in manuscript
Reworked Pentateuch (RP) manuscripts from Qumran cave 4, now regarded

as biblical manuscripts ..... p. 323
Samaritan Book of Joshua
75,n. 120
version of Joshua preserved by the Samaritans-+ p.
422
Glossary
Samaritan Pentateuch (.W.) ancient text of the Torah preserved by the

Samaritan community-+ pp. 74-93
Samaritan script form of the early Hebrew script+ in which Samaritan texts
were written-+ p. 207
scriptio continua
continuous writing without word division ..... p. 196
Scroll(s) of the Temple Court

176
Sebirin
Masoretic+ note referring to a difficult word or form ..... p. 59
section divisions
-+open and closed sections+
Septuagint (LXX,
128
silluq
Torah scroll(s) found in the Temple Court ..... p.
Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture. See also OG ...... p.
Masoretic accent indicating the end of a verse
soferim ("Scribes") according to tradition, the scribes who copied and transmitted the text of Hebrew Scripture-+ p. 26
square (also: "Aramaic", "Jewish") script script in which biblical scrolls were
written after a certain period in Second Temple times-+ p. 207
stich
line of poetry
stichographic layout
system devised for the graphic representation of the
relation between hemistichs+ and stichs+ -+ p. 201
supralinear element added above the line as a scribal correction-+ p. 204
suspended letter
supralinear letter+ in m indicated in the Mm+ ..... p. 52
Symmachus pre-Hexaplaric+ revision of Greek Scripture (approximately 200

CE)-+ p. 144
synonymous readings
function -+ p. 257
readings that involve words with similar meaning and
Syro-Hexapla translation of the Greek Hexapla+ into Syriac, prepared in the

century by Paul from Tella
Targum(im)
7th
Aramaic translation(s) of Hebrew Scripture-+ pp. 147-50
Targum Jonathan
p. 150
Targum Neophyti
Torah ..... p. 150
Targum to the Prophets ascribed to Jonathan ben 'Uzziel-+

MS
Vatican Neophyti 1 of the Palestinian Targum to the
Targum Onqelos Targum to the Torah by Onqelos the Proselyte-+ p. 149

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Palestinian Targum to the Torah ..... p. 149
Tetragrammaton The four-letter (tetra + gramma) name of God, YHWH

Tetrapuncta
205
four dots (tetra + puncta) representing the Tetragrammaton+ -+ p.
Glossary
423
textual witnesses (sources) different forms of the ancient biblical text transmitted in Hebrew and translated sources
textus receptus "received text"; accepted form of a textual tradition, not

necessarily reflecting specific manuscripts
Theodotion pre-Hexaplaric+ reviser (end of the 2nd century
translation ..... kaige- Theodotion
TMT
CE)
of the OG+
Tiberian form of the Masoretic Text ..... p. 24
transliteration representation of a word in the corresponding characters of a

different language
uncial (majuscule) manuscript
..... p.133
Greek manuscript written with "capital" letters
Urtext ..... original or determinative text

variant (reading) detail in a textual witness+ differing from a central or
determinative source, usually m..... p. 266
verse division
division of the text into units smaller than sections ..... p. 49
Vetus Latina (VL)
"Old Latin" translation of II) ..... p. 133
vocalization (vowels)
text ..... pp. 39-47
Vorlage
diacritical signs indicating the reading of the consonantal
Hebrew-Aramaic text that lay before a translator or a scribe ..... p. 116
Vulgate Latin translation of Hebrew Scripture by Jerome (390 and 405 CE)
152-3
witnesses
..... textual witnesses
word division
indication of the separation between words ..... p. 196
.....
pp.
INDEX 1
ANCIENT SOURCES
OLD TESTAMENT
MASORETIC TEXT (m) AND
OTHER SOURCES
Genesis
1-3
1:1-2:3
1:1
1:5
1:9
1:13
1:14
1:31
2:2
2:4
2:11
3:21
4:7
4:8
4:23-24
5
5:2
6:2
6:3
7:16
7:2
8:17
9:21
10-11
10
10:1-29
136
50
53,68
199
360
199
34
113
163,244,275
54,66
78
113
118
50,221
5,352
13
83
250
114
83
83
57
84, 211
13
13, 16
13
10:3
10:4
10:5
10:9-12
10:13
10:18
10:19
10:19-21
10:22
10:23
10:28
11:32
12:6
14:1
14:14
14:22
15:18
16:5
18:5
18:9
18:22
19:33
20:13
22:13
24:25
24:33
24:41
24:65
25
25:14-15
25:23
25:33
13
13, 16
13
13
257
13
83
13
13
13
13, 16
51
88
7
86
261
83
52
61
52
61
52,220
85
229
68
57
267
220
13
49
5
113
426
27:2
27:19
27:22
27:27
28

113
68
217
113,115
136
28:10
29
29:3
200
30:16
220
30:42
30:43
53
239
4
104
31
31:6
136
68
31:17
31:51
239
31:53
31:55
85
32
32:1
32:4
32:23
33:4
33:18-20
68
5
4
5
200
220
52
88
35-36
13
35:7
35:22
35:27
85
50,51
8
36:3
36:10
36:22
36:23
199
36:39
37:12
113, 115
230
16
229
52
38:14
39:20
41:1
42:32
44:18
44:22
220
57
200
239
200
82
47:21
48
86
136
48:19
49:2
49:7
49:10
49:11
49:13
49:17
49:19-20
50:26
Exodus
1:12
1:19
2:9
3:18
6-37
6:9
7-11
8:14
8:16-19
8:20
10:3
12-13
12:8
13:15-16
14:12
15:1-18
15:2
15:3
15:13
15:21
17:9
18:21
18:22
19:9
20
20:2
20:11
20:12-16
20:24 (21)
21-23

21:37-22:3
22:1-3
22:4
22:8
22:12
22:26
24:4
24:5
28:12
28:29
28:42
30:36
31:13
32:32
34:1
35-40
38:8
Leviticus
9:2
9:9
10:1
10:16
10:17
11:6
11:21
11:42
13:33
20:23-24
26:19
26:32
50
50
84
85
41,65
84,215
181, 252
64, 176
66
66
252
126
84
193
181
316
245
218
3, 29
29
34
53
29
29
58
53
53
204
221
106
Numbers
1-3
2:7
2:14
2:20
2:22
2:29
3:10
3:39
3:40
6:23-26
215
322
322
322
322
322
322
52
217
5,111
7:88
9:10
9:15
9:22-23
10:34-36
10:6
11:11
11:15
12:12
13:16
14:23
15:24
17:22
18:2
20:12-13
20:14-18
21:5
21:28
21:30
23:3
23:7
24:17
24:23
25:12
27:5
27:8
28:13
29:15
30:3
32:30
33:31-37
35
35:9-34
35:11
35:24-25
36:1
427
322
52
126
322
51,309
322
216
60
60,61
82
322
237
126
126
92
81
87
59,259
52
322
322
86
322
53
53
83
217
52
256
322
81
296
296
296
83
322
Deuteronomy
1-3
1:9-18
1:13
2:7
81,322
81
81
81
428
2:9
2:18-19
3:24-27
3:28
5-6
5
5:5
5:6
5:7
5:17-20
5:21
5:28-29
5:29-30
5:31
6:1
6:4-5
9:20
10-11
10:6-7
11:24
11:29
11:30
11:31-32
11:32
13:7
16:7
16:21-17:1
16:21-22
17:1
18:16
18:18-22
19
19:4
19:1-13
21:7
22:14
23:2
25:11
27
27:2
27:4

92
92
92
295
112
6, 111,314
84
6,88
6
6
113
91,187,314
314
314
314
111
91
112
81
83
88
88
50
314
262
136
50
50
50
81
81, 91, 187
296
296
296
257
68
6
252
299
88
88,254
27:5-7
28:16
28:27
28:30
29:27
29:28
31:1
32
32:8
32:35
32:39
32:43
32:45
33:2
33:27
34:1-3
88
340
57,251
57,251
53,300
52
123
62, 96, 99, 112
248,338
239
67,68
243,352,373
123
235
176
83
Joshua
1:7
1:11
3:3
3:4
3:16
4:10
4:12
4:18
5:1
6:6
6:9
7:21
10:1
10:24
11:15
12:9-24
13:18
15-19
15:3
15:47
15:63
18:1
19:50
20
253
295
35
35
58
295
295
58
232
35
35
226
42
54,55
295
62
230
382
230
58,230
382
246
382
295

20:1-6
21:35-38
22:4
24:17
24:24
24:26
24:30
24:33
296
223
295
295
253
181
382
298
Judges
1:8
1:19-20
1:21
2:6
2:9
2:11-14
3:24
5:2-31
6:7-10
6:32
7:1
8-9
8:1-29
8:29
8:30-35
16:21
16:25
18:7
18:10
18:30
19:18
19:29
20:13
1-2 Samuel
1 Samuel
1
1-2
1:2
1:9
1:11
1:14
1:17
382
214
382
298
298,382
298
68
62
313
248
248
298
298
248
299
57
57
333,338
339
53
238.
238
56
12, 189
373
164
364
261
68,255
267
255
237
1:22-28
1:23
1:24
1:25
1:28
2:3
2:8-11
2:11
2:16
2:17
2:20
2:21-22
2:22-23
3:13
4:21-22
5:6
5:9
5:12
6:4
6:5
9:4
9:13
9:22
10:1
10:27
11
13:1
13:6
13:15
14:16
14:23-24
14:41
14:49
16-18
16:1-19:18
16:2
16:7
16:21
17
17:7
17:12-31
429
364
256,277
236,277,278
255
255,373,375
364
364
255
253
245
124,256
278
245
60
226
57
57
57
57
57
382
214
214
224
311,333
311
10
335
278
278
373
224
248
301
361
50,51
211
303
364
233
243,301
430
17:17-23
17:23
17:41
17:48b
17:50
17:55-58
18:1-6
18:5
18:10-11
301
301
301,302
301
302
301
10:16
10:17
11:21
12:9
12:10-14
13:33
13:37
14:30
16:1-4
18:12
18:13
18:17-19
18:20-27
18:21
19:10
301
302
301,302
302
301
220
16:5
16:10
17:18
19:20
19:25
21:12
338
251
211,277
211
126
126
21:18
22
22:1
22:5
22:15
22:28
126
323
251
301
7
237
22:43
22:46
22:51
23
23:8
23:12
19:20
20:16
20:30
20:38
21:8
22:9
22:18
23:23
25:22
29-30
30:30
31:10-12
302
221
301
2 Samuel
1:22
2:8
3:8
3:16
3:25
4:4
5:13
5:16
5:21
7:4
8:3
8:7
9:6-13
336
248
248
233
57
248
239
248
245,250
51
56
124
248
214,234
214
248
147,251,278
251
56
231
8
248
233
68
233
52
248
237
238
12, 17, 213
257
257
222
352
229
232
55
213
147,248
233
23:13
23:25-27
23:28-29
23:29
23:31
58
238
16
278
233
1-2 Kings
218
1 Kings
1:18
2:4
2:12
7:45
8:2
8:12-13
234
256
147,308
233
268
309
8:14-21
8:16
8:41-42
8:53
10:18
10:19
11
11:1-8
11:5
11:20
11:33
12:2
12:12
12:16
12:18
16:33
16:34
17:1
18:18
18:19
18:25
20-21
22:20
22:24
2 Kings
3
3:24
4:7
4:42
5:12
8:16
11:4
11:6-14
15:16
15:29
16:6
16:7-10
17:24-34
18:13-20:11
18:26
19:9
309
223
223
309
214
215
364
363
247,268
34
247
230
34
60
234
324
147,268,297,324
324
253
20:1-6
20:1-11
20:4
20:5-8
20:12
22:4
23-24
24-25
24:18-25:30
25:6
25:20
25:30
1:1
1:3
247
247
310
231
335
226
308
231
5:23
9:1-10:4
9:8
9:12
9:16
9:18
225
225
310
310
55
310
230
232
321
288
12
17
17
226
Isaiah
1:8
1:9
1:12
1:18
2:3-4
3:11
68
339
230
35
226
226
226
237
58
215,237
77
12, 17
431
11:15
13:16
13:19
14:2
24:3
24:14
26:3-4
28:12
30:30
31:6
32:18
33:1
33:8
34:4
33
33,38
30
64
247
34
241
65
337
50
233
226
242
233
332
57
233
241
125
235
222
216
224
224
209
267
329
194
432
34:16
35:1
35:6
36:1-38:8
36:11
36:19
37:9
38:1-8
38:7
38:21-22
39:1
39:2
40:7-8
40:12
44:9
45:2
45:7
47:2
49:7
51:9
54:13
56:6
59:3
60:4
61:2
61:10-62:9
62:1
66:12
Jeremiah
2:11
2:20
3:2
6:11
6:13-15
7:3
7:7
8:10-12
9:20-21
9:22-23
10:1-11
11:2

104
8
241
12,17
124,257
226
225
310
311
310
231,282
258
223
235
52
236
242
275
329
226
55
242
259
259
267
199
258
259
181
60
229
57
239
288
246
246
288
352
246,261
293,371
7
13:12
14:14
15:13-14
17:3-4
23:7-8
23:9-40
23:9
23:17
23:33
23:40
25:13
25:14
25:38
26
26:1
27-29
27
27:1-10
27:1
27:3
27:7
27:12-14
27:12
27:19
27:19-22
27:22
28:1
29:6
29:16-20
29:25
29:26
30:4
30:10-11
30:13
30:18
30:25
31:1
33:8
33:14-26
36
36:23
355
38
288
288
287,310
310
124,125,310
357
276
287
287
288
353
11
68
188
11,136,289,364,369
363
11,68
11
288
369
11
325,369
288
325
11,68
288
325
104
238
34
288
232
353
5
5
104
288
20,240
181

36:26
36:28
36:32
39:5
41:9
43:2-10
46-51
46:1
46:27-28
48:21
48:45
49:11
49:13
49:19
49:34
238
194
168, 181
17
276
293
287
287
288
230
59,86,259,335
67
300
232
68
7:5
7:6-7
7:21-22
8:3
8:17
10:4
10:16
10:19
11:13
12:26-28
13
13:11
13:20
13:24
14
50:21
50:44
51:3
51:24
51:35
Jer 51:44-49
217
232
224
215
215
288
14:1
16:13
20:28
20:34
20:41
23:48
Jer 51:63
Jer 52
Jer 52:9-10
Jer 52:26
Jer 52:34
193
27:15
32:23-30
34:17
40:16
40:21
41:20
12,287,288
17
17
225
Ezekiel
1
1:11
1:22
1:27
2:1-6
2:9
3:1
3:12
3:18
5:11
5:14-15
6:6
6:14
7
362
325
300.
325
335
194
194
332
300
359
300
300
17
299
42:9
42:9-14
43:7-9
44:28
46:22
433
38
325
222
300
60
332
332
332
335
300
4
104
104
5
4
5
300
300
215
215
49, 104
16
215
104
104
217
52
235
215
247
352
52
Hosea
4:4
6:5
333
235
Amos
4:3
6:12
9:9
104
331,372
67
434
Jonah
1:9
3:6
238
220
Micah
1:3
2:9
2:13
332
236
125
Habakkuk
1:12
1:13
60
34
Haggai
1:1
1:8
1:12
1:14
2:2
2:15-16
2:23
237
55
237
237
237
372
237
Zechariah
2:12
14:2
60
57
Malachi
1:13
60
Psalms
4:3
9
10:8
14
18
18:1
18:5
18:43
18:46
18:51
19:9
22:16
23:2
25:4
27:13
29:1
29:6
352
137
352
12, 14, 15
12, 17, 213
257
258
229
233
55
334
334
209
334
52
337
338
31:3
33
34:10
38:20
40:8
42-89
42:3
43
49:12
49:14
53
53:1-7
71
71:3
72:9
73:1
80:14
84:7
89:7
96:8-9
101:5
104:4
104:17
106:20
107:21-28
107:40
113:2
114-6
119
132:1-5
140:7
145:5
147
151
237,376
137
118
372
194
15, 188
247
137
254
334
12, 14, 15
15
137
375,376
334
334
53
329,333
338
49
352
335
125
60
51
51
242
137
96,202,321
51
338
352
137
51,322
Job
1:5
1:19
2:9
6:30
7:20
8:8
251
336
251
334
60
237

17:10
20:12-13
20:26
38:12
38:13,15
35
334
335
235
53
Proverbs
1:1
4:7
8:16
8:33
10:1
14:32
15:20
15:28,29
16:1, 3
17:27
20:14-19
20:21
22:17-24:22
22:17
22:20
24-31
24:23-34
25:1
30:1-14
30:15-33
30:17
30:29
31:1-9
31:10-31
53
305
6
305
39
254
39
305
305
229
305
58
305,333
305
332
305
305
305
305
305
338
215
305
305"
Ruth
1:22
2:3
2:5
3:1
3:14
4:18
Canticles
1:1
3:6
3:6-8
200
215
215
200
355
66
218
53
356
321
435
3:8
4:3
4:4-7
355
355
4:12
7:7, 10
356
356
Qoheleth
218
217
44
44
1:6
2:7
2:10, 13, 22
3:16, 18
3:21
4:4
12:13
Esther
1:1
1:20
2:20
3:13
4:8
4:17
5
5:1
6:13
7:7,8
8:5
8:12
8:17
9:6-9
10:3
321
44
254
44
53
218,317
268
356
317
268
317
268
319
268
317
8
8
268
318
62
268
Daniel
9:24
11:8
Ezra
2
2:2
2:25
2:28, 31, 47
3:2
3:8
4:1-5
40
8
218
12
232
221,268
268
237
237
77
436
5:2
7:6
Nehemiah
2:13
7:6-72
7:7
7:29
8:6
8:8
8:14
8:15
11:11
1-2 Chronicles
1 Chronicles
1
1:1
1:4-23
1:7
1:11
1:17
1:22
1:30
1:39
1:50
11
2:47-49
3:17
4:16-18
4:22
5:1
6:40ff
6:64
7:34-38
8:17-22
8:33,34
9:11
9:39,40
11:14
11:15
11:27,29
11:30

237
66,207
218
197
12
232
221
268
63, 198
268
30
232
12,181,218
13, 16
53
13
16
257
13
16
11:31
11:33
11:39
12:1
14:3
14:12
16:29
18:3
19:16
29:18
34-37
2 Chronicles
4:3
6:5-6,32
10:2
10:18
18:19
23:12
32:12
34:9
35-36
278
233
237
152
239
245,250
49
56
234
152
152
226
331
223
230
234
231
226
203
232
321
49
230
229
213
BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE

JUDEAN DESERT
152
Qumran
237
1QpaleoLev
97
97
1QpaleoNum
1QDeuta
104, 188
1QDeutb
123
1Qlsaa
55, 95, 99, 101, 104, 105,
152
372
51
42
230
152
152
248
232
248
233
58
238
16
137, 185, 192, 194, 199,

200, 204, 205, 256, 267,
272,274,275,278,310,352
105
1:1
105, 106
1:2, 3, 7, 8
102, 105, 106
1:4,5
105
1:6
259
1:15
102
1:17
34
1:18
437
3:17, 18
6:4
7:11
7:25
9:8
9:12
9:16
9:18
12:6
13:10
13:19
14:2
19:5
21:1
30:30
30:31
31:6
33:8
34:4
34:11
35:6
35:10
36:7
36:11
36:19
37:9
38:1
39:2
40:5
40:7-8
40:12
44:3
44:9
45:2
45:7
47:2
51:3
51:6
52:12
56:6
59:3
203
102
204
260
229
226
242
233
204,242
256
233
241
203
204,242
224
102
224
329
259
102
241
203
203
124,225
226
225
101
258
102
224
235
260
52
236
242
257
259
259
259
242
259
59:7
60:4
61:2
62:1
66:8
102
259
101
258
102
lQisab
31, 173, 178,352
45:2
48:17-49:15
236
31,32
31
259
104, 125
104
97, 196
157
104,259
201
31
194
194
81,194,360
50:7-51:10
60:4
2QExod 3
2QExodb
2QpaleoLev
2QDeutc
2QJer
4QGen-Exod 3
4QGenb
4QGend
4QGeng
4QGenk
4QpaleoGen m
97
4QpaleoGen-Exod I
97,201
4QExodc
85
4QExodd
96,321
4QExode
194
4QExod-Levf
89,90,91,99
4QpaleoExod 1
196
4QpaleoExodm 82, 84, 89, 90, 91,
7:18, 29
8:19
9:5, 19
92,93,97, 158,196,200
81,92
81,92
81,92
10:2
17:12
18:20
18:24
22:4
22:26
31:13
4QLevc 5:12
4QLevd
92
85
85
81
84
84
84
84
90
438
4QNurnb
83, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,

104,109,158,188,322
4QDeutc
109,262
4QDeuth
109
4QDeuti
104,109,195,248
4QDeutk1
84,104,109,321
4QDeutk2
104, 189
4QDeutm
104, 189
4QDeutn
84, 91, 111, 195
4QDeutq
96, 109, 147, 194,
243,249,321,324,352
4Qpaleo Deu tr
97, 196
97
4QpaleoDeur>
4QRP (4Q364-367)
21, 186
4QRPa (4Q158) 81, 82, 90, 91, 96
108,323
4QRPb (4Q364)
55, 90, 91, 96,
108,194,205,323
4QRPc (4Q365)
84, 87, 96, 109,
160,194,201,262,323
4QRPd (4Q366) 84,96, 109,160
4QRPe (4Q367)
96, 109, 160
4QJosha
140,160,294,314
4QJudga
313,329
4QSarna
109, 124, 140, 146, 147,
157,256,267,313,373
1 Sam 1:2
261
106
1 Sam 1:22-28
256,277
1 Sam 1:23
236,277,278
1 Sam 1:24
1 Sam 2:10
246
1 Sam 2:11
255
1 Sam 2:14
261
1 Sam 2:16
253
1 Sam 2:17
245
124
1 Sam 2:20
278
1 Sam 2:21
1 Sam 2:22-23
245
278
1 Sam 2:22
311
1 Sam 10:27
311
1 Sam 11
2 Sam 4:12
248
2 Sam 5:13
239
2 Sam 12:14
251
4QSarnb 99,109,158,211,212,277
4QSarnc
104, 192
4QKings
223
4Qisaa
212
4Qisab
212
4Qisac
104,205
4Qisad
212
4Qisae
212
4Qisaf
212
4QJera
99,204
4QJerb 21, 95, 109, 137, 140, 168,
174,285,292,371
4QJerc
212
4QJerd 21,95, 109,137,140,168,
174,285,287,293
4QJere
95
4QEzekb
195
4Qxna
99
4QXIIb
194,201
4QXUC
104
4Qxne
104
4QXII8
194, 201, 212
4QPsa
321,372
4QPsb
195, 200, 321
4QPsd
321
4QPse
321
4QPsf
95,321
4QPs8
96,321
4QPsh
96,321
4QPsq
321
97
4QpaleoJobc
4QCanta
96,109,321,355
4QCantb
96,109,184,205,321
4QQoha
99, 100, 104, 194
104
4QLarn
4QDana
204
4QDanc,e
99, 166
96
4QChron
SQDeut
SQKings
SQPs
6QpaleoGen
6QpaleoLev
6QpapKings
6QpapDan
llQpaleoLeva
llQPsa
llQPsb
157, 177, 195

157
96,321
97
97, 196
194
194
97, 159, 196, 200,
204,205,221
47, 95, 109, 200, 202, 214,
228,231,321,322,352
95,104,321
Murabba'at
MurGen
MurExod
MurNum
Murlsa
MurXII
196
196
196
178, 196
29, 194
Nal;talljever
5/6HevPs
29
Masada
MasGen
MasLeva
MasLevb
MasEzek
MasPsa
29
29
29,48
48
29
SAMARITAN PENT. (tu.)

Genesis
1:24
2:14
2:2
3:20
5:2
6:17
7:16
7:2
9:21
10:19
10:8
84
89
86,244
84
83
87
83
83,84
84
83
84
11:11-25
13:6
14:14
14:22
19:29
19:33
24:33
24:41
24:41
24:42
25:9
30:42
31:39
31:40
31:49
38:14
40:15
42:11
42:16
46:3
47:21
49:11
49:15
49:20
49:4
49:7
50:26
439
83
85
86,229
261
89
220
57
267
90
87
89
85
84
234
234
220
84
84
82
84
86
84
85,87
85
87
86,89
57
Exodus
2:10
4:9
7-11
7:14
7:16-18
7:29
8:14
8:19
8:20
9:5
9:19
10:2
15:10
87
84
81
87
92
92
84,87
92
83
92
92
92
234
440
15:16
15:3
17:9
17:12
18:20
18:22
20:17
20:24 (21)
22:6
22:26
24:4
26:35
28:26

84
86
63
85
85
26,83
81
88
84
84
252
82
89
Leviticus
5:5
87
Numbers
3:39
9:6
13:8
21:5
21:30
24:6
24:17
27:8-11
35:25
52
85
83
87
52
89
86
83
83
Genesis
1:9
10:4
14:22
30:43
46:16
49:19-20
50
90
88
84
252
88
89
239
85
83
137
81
16
261
239
228
234
Exodus
1:12
1:19
3:18
4:24
6:12
14:2
14:9
15:1-18
18:7
19:3
22:12
24:10
32:26
35-40
125
64
126
121
119
228
228
121
120
121
65
121
119
316
Leviticus
11:21
Numbers
Deuteronomy
5:1
10:1,3
12:5, 14, 18
19:11
25:11
27:4
32:21
32:35
33:16
34:1-3
ANCIENT VERSIONS
9
10:34-36
12:8
21:30
26
58
137
322
309
122
52
322
Deuteronomy
9:20
16:7
31:1
32:8
32:43
91
136
123
248
243,249
Joshua
1:1
1:15
1:7
2:15
4:10
4:14
6:24
6:26a
9:23
11:2
15:3
16:10
19:2
19:47-48
21:38
21:42a-d
24:2
24:25
24:31a
24:33
137
295
295
253
295
295
119
243
297
243
230
230
297
231
297
231
297
243
253
297
297
5:13
8:7
11:1-1 Kgs 2:11
11:21
12:9
23:8
1-2 Kings (3-4 Kgdms)
1 Kings (3 Kgdms)
1:18
2:12
2:35,46
5:1,14
6:1
8:2
8:53
10:22
11
11:43
12:24
16:9,28
18:18
22-2 Kgs
238
137
Isaiah
Judges
19:18
1-2 Samuel
1 Samuel
1:9
1:11
1:14
1:24
1:25
2:11
2:20
3:13
7:6
9:3
16-18
20:30
21:8
22:9
255
261
255
236,277
255
255
124,256
60
254
81
168
277
126
126
2 Samuel
2:9
228
3:11
9:7
9:13
11:3
24:3
24:23
30:27
33:17
36:11
38:11
40:5
40:6
45:2
52:14
53:2
Jeremiah
6:11
9:22-23
441
239
124
143
248
251
248
137
306-9
234
308
306
307
307
268
307
307
364
230
307
307
253
143
65
41
120
121
125
41
121
121
124
121
121
121
236
121
121
137, 168
239
246,261
442
10
23:9
23:17
27
29-52
36:26
52:34
Ezekiel
27:15
32:25-26
Jonah
1:9
Psalms
1
2
9
10
18:34
31:3
32
36:1
42
70
89:39
103:17
113
114, 115
146, 147
151
Job
2:9
Proverbs
14:32
15:27
24-31
Esther
2:7
Daniel
4-6
Ezra
2:25
292
124, 125
41
364
137
238
225
137, 168
16
300
239
137
137
137
137
137
46
46
137
46
137
137
46
125
137
137
137
322
251
138
254
305
305
268, 317, 318
317
138
318
268
221
8:21
8:31
1-2 Chronicles
1 Chronicles
1:53
11:31
2 Chronicles
35-36
35:19a-d
35:20a
36:2a-c
36:4
36:5a-d
Bar 1:1-3:8
Sir 46:13
1 Esdras
1 Mace 1:56-58
2 Mace 2:14-15
228
228
138
46
278
321
321
321
321
321
321
137,287
261
268
177
177
EARLY GREEK SOURCES
4QLXXLeva
132
4Qpap LXXLevb
132
4QLXXNum
132
8I-:{evXII gr 143, 177, 194, 196,200
145
Pap. Antinoopolis 8
Pap. Chester Beatty see Index 3
200
Pap. Fouad 266
145
Pap. Oxy. 1007
131,
Pap. Rylands Gk. 458
145,200
PESHITTA (5)
Numbers
3:39
1 Samuel
13:1
52
11
T ARGUM ONQELOS (cr:O)
Genesis
28:13
28:20
121
121
Exodus
1:12
Numbers
20:19
Sifre Numbers
125
119
RABBINIC LITERATURE
Mishna
232
193
49
177
261
253
150
207
Palestinian Talmud
Shabb. 16.15c
150
Pesa/:z. 9.36d
52
Ta 'an. 4.68a
176
Meg. 1.71b-c
207
Meg. 1.7lc
21.9
Meg. 1.71d
192,193,197,204
Meg. 4.74d
63
San. 2.20c
31
Abod. Zar. 3.41c
63
Mekhilta
Shirata 6
Amalek 1
Nezikin 12
1
6
28
160
309
Massekhet Soferim
Massekhet Sefer Torah
Genesis Rabba
12.6
13.1
34.8
36.8
37.1
49.7
34
34
34
31
33
195
195
113
66
33
55
49,63
16
61
63
.Pesiqta de Rab Kahana

4.10; 25.1
34
Midrash Tan/:zuma Besalla/:z 16, 60

Exodus Rabba 13.1
60
Genesis Rabbati
112, 113
Midrash /:laser weyater
217
Midrash Qere we-la Ketib
55
Soferim
1.7
1.15
2.1
141
191, 199
205
2.3, 5
192
2.20
3.1-3
192
205
192
192,204
203
3.9
Midrashim and Minor

Tractates
52
60
Sifre Deuteronomy
80.6
Tosepta
Shabb. 13.2
Sanh. 5.7
69
84
T ARGUM JONATHAN (a:J)

Isaiah
6:1
121
Shabb. 12.5
Meg. 2.2
Meg. 4.4
Yad. 3.5
Nazir 9.5
Zeha/:z. 14.4-8
443
3.10
5.1
60
6.8, 9
60
63
65
7
7.5
8.1-2
56
55
235
17
444
9.1-7
9.8
53
57
Babylonian Talmud
Berakot
19a
60a
64a
Shabbat
103b
104a
115b
'Erubin
26a
Yoma
21b
52a-b
Sukka
6b
Megill a
2b
3a
9a
11a
13a
18b
25b
1-fagiga
6b
Qiddushin
30a
Ketubot
106a
Gi,t,tin
60a
Nedarim
37b-38a
37b
So.ta
12b
64
64
55
199,228
197
51, 150
55
55
63
30
197
49,63, 144,149
207
101
317
112,219
57
64
53,66,198
30
194
56
49,55,61,63
235
20a
Baba Batra
13b
14b-15a
79a
109b
Sanhedrin
21b
22a
29b
32b
Pesa]Jim
112a
30
194, 201
4,97
52
53
207
207
54,204
219
31, 178
NON-BIBLICAL
MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE
JUDEAN DESERT
lQapGen
261
lQpHab
114
1QH 3
104,249
lQM
104
104,192,200
lQS
lQSa
192
192
lQSb
201
1-4QHodayot
202
2QSir
4-llQTemple 114,189,262,284
4Q175 (Test) 81, 82, 90, 91, 187,
297
4Q252 (4QComm GenA) 91,114
4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb) 297,315
4Q380-1 (4QN on-Canonical
114
Psalms A-B)
80
4QMMTB38
111
8QPhyl
148, 150
llQtgJob
194
llQapocrPs
101
Mur papLetter
202
MasSir
MasQumran-Type
Fragment
MasShirShabb
papMas 1o
CD V 1-5
100
100
88
298
4QPhyl A-S
4QPhyl A,B,J
4QPhyl G
4QPhyl J
4QMez A
104
314
111,113
219
111
4Q156 (tgLev)
4Q157 (tgJob)
148, 149
148
INSCRIPTIONS
Gezer
Masada
Mesh a
Phoenician
Siloam
Yehimilk
209
101
209
196,209
209
209
VARIOUS
see Index 3
Abisha' scroll
333
Amen-em-Ope 30
61
Homer, Iliad III.423-6
Josephus, Ant.
VI 68-71
VIII
XI 340-345
313
309
77
Josephus, Bell. ]ud.

VII 150, 162
Jubilees 2:16
Justin Martyr
Apology
Dial. w. Trypho, 68.7
112
245, 275
129
129
Justinian, Novella, 146
142
KTU 1.4, Vl.46
249
KTU 1.19, II13
339
see Index 3
Nash papyrus
Origen, ad Afric. 4
286
Severus Scroll
see Index 3
445
INDEX2
AUTHORS
Tannaim and Amoraim
207
MarUkba
207
Mar Zu.tra
144
R. Akiba
R. Eleazar
55
R. Eliezer
149
R. Eliezer ben Yose ha-Gelili
143
R. Hanina
55
R. Ishmael
30
R. Joshua
149
R. Mattiah b. Heresh
197
R. Meir
112-13, 145, 180
R. Simeon
55
Medieval
Ibn Ezra
64,211,249,251
232
Ibn Janah
Maimonides
45,48
Mishael ben Uzziel
44,45
Moses ha-Darshan
113
Nachmanides
64, 196
Rash bam
34
R. David Kimhi (RaDaK)
10, 16
Yedidyah Shelomo from Norzi 37
Modern
Abegg, M.G.
Aejmelaeus, A.
31, 94, 102
115, 122, 123, 286,
Ahituv, S.
Aland, B.
Aland, K.
Albertz, R.
Albrektson, B.
287,316
208,333
342
342
319
174, 175, 176, 178,

179,269,276,277,348,367,373
111, 140, 169, 173,
Albright, W.F.
210,361
147, 150
Alexander, P.S.
299,321
Allen, L.C.
Althann, R.
337
Altmann, A.
39
Anbar, M.
251
Andersen, F.l. 26, 53, 208,212,214,
215,216,217,218,237,377,381
Ap-Thomas, D.R.
1, 175, 367
Aptowitzer, V.
33
Aqiba, R.
176
Archer, G.L.
269,270,273,277
72
Athias, J.
Auld, A.G.
294,301,302
206
Avigad, N.
327,334
Avishur, Y.
Bacher, W.
66
Baer, S.
7, 73
Baillet, M.
74, 75, 91, 112
Banning, J.H.A. van, S.J.
49
448
Index 2: Authors
366
191
111
59, 60
42, 46, 47, 54, 56, 115,
123,208,212,213,215,217,336,
338,339,374
Barth, H.
269, 270, 273, 275, 281
Barthelemy, D. 1, 19, 20, 24, 31, 44,
48, 59, 65, 93, 112, 127, 132, 142-6,
147, 161, 164, 175, 178,244,254,
263,265,269,270-73,275,279,283,
301,302,311,327,348,373,374
152,304
Baumgartner, A.J.
Beckwith, R.T.
30
231
Beegle, D.M.
Beer, G.
348
361
Begrich, J.
24,26,192,206,218
Beit-Arie, M.
44,219
Bendavid, A.
95,293
Ben-Dov, J.
275
Bengel, J.A.
66, 74, 76, 77, 86,
Ben-I-,Iayyim, Z.
89,90,91
Bentzen, A. 264,270,275,276,280
74,75,77
Ben-Zvi, I.
Berlin, A.
339
Berliner, A.
217
37
Betzer, Z.
348
Bewer, J.A.
127
Bickerman, E.
Barak, N.
Bar-Ilan, M.
Barkay, G.
Barnes, W.E.
Barr, J.
Blommerde, A.C.M.
337
Blondheim, D.S.
134
Boer, P.A.H. de
189,364
Bogaert, P.-M.
127, 134, 135, 142,
Bidermannus, J.G.
8
34,206,207
Birnbaum, S.A.
192
Birt, T.
Black, M.
59
24
Blau, J.
47, 48, 51, 65, 70, 73,
Blau, L.
286,287,288,299,301,316,317
Bohler, D.
319
Bonani, G.
99
Borbone, P.G.
152, 161, 281, 362
Braulik, G.
74
Brekelmans, C.
337
Brenton, L.L.
381
Breuer, M.
4, 5, 6, 7, 24, 35, 45,
54,56,62,65,69,74,343,344
Breuer, Y.
62,63
Bright, J.
371
Brock, S.P.
115, 118, 127, 135,
145, 146, 150, 152
Brockington, L.H.
373
Brenno, E.
46
Brooke, A.E.
134
96, 110, 112, 114,
Brooke, G.J.
283,285
Brotzman, E.R.
1
Brownlee, W .H.
114
Budde, K.
14, 361, 362
Buhl, F.
171
307,308,348
Burney, C.F.
144, 146, 147
Busto Saiz, J.R.
51,52
Butin, R.
20,72
Buxtorf, J.
101
Campbell, J.
134
Cantera, J.
1, 11, 19, 20, 41,
Cappellus, L.
171,219,270,275,330
Caquot, A.
91
115,342
Carson, D.A.
192, 199
449
Index 2: Authors
Cassuto, P.
Cassuto, U.
Castellus, E.
Catastini, A.
Cathcart, K.J.
Cerny, J.
Chavel, C.B.
Chiesa, B.
54
4, 5, 6, 7, 56, 344
71,79
311, 313, 362
337
184
196
19, 36, 155, 159, 169,
170, 171
20, 161, 162, 175,263
Childs, B.S.
278
Clark, A.C.
Clifford, R.J.
304, 305
Clines, D.J.A.
318
Cogan,M.
165,183,283,285
Coggins, R.J.
76, 78
Cohen, A.
195
Cohen,C.
337
Cohen, Maimon
54,56,57
Cohen, M.B.
8,62,64,72,74
Cohen, Menahem
24-6, 32, 37,
38, 39, 44, 45, 62-3, 65, 68,
70-74,89,90,341,343,344
Cohn, Y.B.
101, 112
Collins, J.
319,348
Colwell, E.C.
278
Cook, J.
101,304,305
Cook, S.A.
111
Cooke, G.A.
348
Cooper, A.
331
Coote, R.B.
161, 165, 264
Coppens, J.
270,336
Co mill, C.H.
20, 211, 348, 361,
362,364
Cox, C.E.
138
Crawford, S. White
107, 169, 268,
359,362,363,364
Crim, K.R.
367
Cross, F.M.
47,91,93,99,100102, 140, 146, 147, 157, 169, 173,
175,178,185,206,208-9,210,211,
212,263,267,311,312,340,361
Crown, A.D.
74, 75, 76, 78, 192,
Dahmen, U.
Dahood, M.J.
218,315
320,321
276, 331, 336-7,
338,365
Daley, S.C.
Daube, D.
Davidson, S.
55,367,373-5
273
219,269, 270, 271,
280,348
102
273
107
33
157
Davies, P.R.
Davies, W.W.
Davila, J.
Davis, M.C.
de Dieu, L.
de Lagarde, P.
20, 28, 52, 131,
147,154,156,170-72,272
20, 34, 37, 38, 270,
de Rossi, J.B.
350
De Troyer, K.
318
de Vaux, R.
178
De Vries, S.J.
308
de Wette, W.M.L.
270
Dearing, V.A.
329
Debe!, H.
93, 107, 169, 170, 174,
314,322
Deist, F.E.
1, 18, 162, 166,263,
270,274,275,350,354
Delekat, L.
152
Delitzsch, F.
7,73,219,227,235,
259,331
Demsky, A.
191,332
den Boeft, J.
134
Dennefeld, L.
219
450
Index 2: Authors
154
Derenbourg, J.
74,76,77,88,90
Dexinger, F.
Dhorme, E.
348
Dfaz Esteban, F.
68
Diestel, L.
19
Dietrich, M.
40
Dietrich, W.
254
Dfez Macho, A.
24,150
Dfez Merino, L.
36, 40, 149
Dijkstra, M.
300
348
Dillmann, A.
Dimant, D.
33
Diringer, D.
206
Dirksen, P.B.
150,151,351
37,350
Doderlein, J.C.
127
Dogniez, C.
Donner, H.
208,209,210
Dorival, G.
127, 136
Dotan, A. 4-7, 8, 24, 39, 44, 45, 55,
Epp, E.J.
Esh, S.
Eshel, E.
271, 280, 341

34
74, 76, 77, 78, 82, 90,

111,258,332
76,77,78,88,90
270
Eshel, H.
Estienne, H.
Fabry, H.-J.
Fassberg,S.
Faulkenberry Miller, J.B.
Fenton, T.L.
Fernandez Marcos, N.
132
102
132
336
115, 127,
134, 146, 147, 151, 177, 269, 313,
363
Fernandez Tejera, E.
40,69
329
Fernandez Truyols, A.
348
Field, F.
146
Finfer, P.
5,50
Finn, A.H.
316,317
Fischer G., S.J.
286,287
Fischer, A.A.
1, 18, 263, 350
Fischer, B.
133
Fishbane, M. 238, 242, 259, 294, 296
Fitzmyer, J.A.
93, 148
Flint, P.W.
137, 320, 321
76, 78, 79, 86, 357
Florentin, M.
Fahrer, G.
156,160,162,300
Forbes, A.D. 53, 208, 212, 214, 215,
242, 275, 341, 342

1, 11, 19, 20, 30,
161,170,171,219,238
Eissfeldt, 0.
1, 160, 176, 192,281,
339,365
Eldar, I.
227
93
Elgvin, T.
351
Elliger, K.
Elyoenay, M.
259
276,337
Emerton, J.A.
216,217-18,237,377,381
304,305
Forti, T.
304,305,318,362
Fox, M.V.
132,286
Fraenkel, D.
47
Fraenkel, J.
Freedman, D.B.
8, 72, 74
Freedman, D.N.
26, 51, 77, 97, 99,
100, 160, 191,206,208,209,210,
212,327,339,214,278,340,361
299,300
Freedy, K.S.
62,65,73,343,344,346,347,352
98
110, 238, 239, 259,
260,327,374
Driver, S.R. 115, 162, 189, 196, 235,
Doudna,G.
Driver, G.R.
251,254,277,348,365
Ducan, M.
Duhm, B.
Ehrman, B.D.
Eichhorn, J.G.
33
Index 2: Authors
68,69
Frensdorff, S.
144
Friedmann, M.
185
Fuller, R.E.
31,362
Garbini, G.
Garda Martinez, F.
93,314
Gaster, M.
75, 76, 77, 294, 296
59, 144, 172, 174,242,
Geiger, A.
244,246,247,250,254,332
150, 351, 361
Gelston, A.
1, 142, 143
Gentry, P.J.
169,173,304
Gerleman, G.
133
Gesche, B.
Gesenius, W. 1, 39, 40, 74, 79, 157,
220,227,236,332,335
Giesebrecht, F.
361
Gillmayr-Bucher, S.
137
Ginsberg, H.L.
327, 336, 337, 338
4, 7, 8, 24, 35, 38,
Ginsburg, C.D.
47,48,49,50-54,59,60,66,69, 70,
71, 73, 115, 175, 191, 196, 208, 216,
235,238,247,251,344,349
Giron Blanc, L.F.
78
Glassius, S.
20, 170, 172,270,330
Glatzer, M.
24, 45, 74, 191, 192,
195, 196
147
Glessmer, U.
367
Gnilka, J.
Goedicke, H.
336
Goldman, Y.
169, 286, 287, 28S.
Goldschmidt, L.
70
Gonzalez Luis, J.
144
Gooding, D.W.
155, 156,301,302,
306,307,310,316,317
Goodwin, D.W.
208, 210, 336, 339
54, 56, 57, 58, 169
Cordis, R.
Gordon, R.P.
367, 373
Cashen-Gottstein, M.H.
19,24,
451
26, 33, 34, 39, 45, 70, 72, 73, 102,

115, 123, 150, 164, 169, 170, 171,
263,341,350,356,357,358
Gosse, B.
286,288
Gotthard, H.
348
Gottlieb, L.
224
Grabbe, L.L.
46,143,336
Grafton, A.
145
Graves, M.
152
Gray, G.B.
339
147, 149
Gray, J.
31, 161, 164, 174,
Greenberg, M.
175, 176, 177,280
142,143,367,373
Greenspoon, L.
Greenstein, E.L.
34
Greetham, D.C.
1
319
Grelot, R.
Grintz, Y.M.
1, 54
147
Grossfeld, B.
157
Grotius, H.
Gryson, R.
133
Gunkel, H.
365
Haar Romeny, B. ter
151
47,54,55
I-,lamiel,H.
Habel, N.C.
283
Habermann, A.M. 24, 70, 112, 191
133
Haelewyck, J.-C.
Hahn, A.
72
Hall, B.
341
191,259,327
Hall, F.W.
247
Hamilton, G.J.
Hanhart, R.
318, 321, 378
Hanson, P.O.
361
Hanson, R.S.
77, 206
Haran, M.
30, 183, 191, 192, 193
Harl, M.
127
157
Hassencamp(ius), J.M.
452
Index 2: Authors
Hatch, E.
138
Haupt, P.
349, 351, 352, 361, 362
Hayes, C.
305
Hayes, J.H.
270, 271
Heinemann, J.
165
Hempel, C.
186
Hcmpei,J.
33,219
Hendel, R.S.
1, 66, 82, 107, 136,
Japhet, S.
14,160,252,256
Jellicoe, S.
128, 377
Jellinek, A.
55
Jenner, K.D.
151
Jepsen, A.
161,762,263
Jobes, K.H.
318
Johnson, B.
145
Joosten, J.
247,268,286,288,359,
164,169,219,258,301,305-6,
359,360,362,363-4
Hengel, M.
128, 129
362,363,364
Jull, A.J.T.
98, 99
Junker, H.
232
Kahle, P.
33, 39, 40, 44, 46, 47, 71,
73,131,154-6,161,
172,173,175,176,184,351
Herrmann, J.
300
Hess, R.S.
313
Higger, M.
195
Hjelm, I.
77
Hognesius, K.
359, 361
Holladay, W.L.
247, 287, 369, 371
Holmes, R.
133, 134
Holmes, S.
294
I-Iolm-Nielsen, S.
373
37,72
Hooght, E. van der
Hooykaas, I.
306
Hart, F.J .A.
266,275,280
250
Hossfeld, F.-L.
20, 157
Hottinger(us), J.H.
Houbigant, A.F.
20,270,330
Housman, A.E.
1,269,341,349
Houtsma, M.Th.
348
Hugo, P.
134, 142, 143, 254,
Hummel, H.D.
Hutzli, J.
Hyvarinen, K.
Jablonski, D.E.
Janko, R.
Jansma, T.
Janzen, J.G.
306,307
337,338
254
143
72
165, 183
62,63,168
286,287,289
Kaiser, 0.
Kalimi, I.
Kamesar, A.
Karrer, M.
Kartveit, M.
281
17,
258
152
128
74, 77, 80, 81, 88,

90,91
47, 53, 147, 206
50
Kasher, M.M.
Kasher, R.
Katz, P.
273
Kautzsch, E.
39, 40, 220, 227, 335
Kedar-Kopfstein, B.
152, 153
Keil, K.F.
19,20
65,68
Kelley, P.G.
219,227,270
Kennedy, J.
219, 263, 327, 363
Kenney, E.J.
Kennicott, B.
8, 11, 17, 20, 34, 37,
38,72,219,238,344,358,361
Kessels, A.H.M.
Khan, G.
Kim, H.
Kim, J.-H.
Kim, K.-R.
Kirchheim, R.
134
46
129
142
82,135,136,258
79
Index 2: Authors
Kittel, R.
155, 161, 162, 166, 168,

263,339,349,350,351,365
148, 149, 150
Klein, M.L.
Klein, R.W. 1, 18, 155,259,269-71,
274,275,277,305,306,307,308
169
Klijn, A.F.J.
305,306
Klostermann, A.
320
Knoppers, G.N.
374
Knox, R.A.
241,242,258
Koenig, J.
62,64,65
Kogut, S.
Komlosh, Y.
147, 149
Konig, E. 19, 20, 169, 170, 339, 348
Kooij, A. van der
1, 62, 63, 110,
137, 142, 144, 189,241,283,285,
310,311,348,357
Koren, M.
Kraft, R.A.
Kraus, H.J.
Kraus, J.L.H.
Kraus, W.
Krauss, S.
Krecher, J.
Kreuzer, S.
Kuenen, A.
Kugel, J.
Kuhn, K.G.
Kuhnigk, W.
Ki.immel, W.G.
Kutscher, E.Y.
4-7,70,344
142, 143
19
342
128
31, 193
259,260
1, 107, 174, 177
316
453
186,286,301,311,320,321,323
Langlamet, F.
48
Langton, S.
49
Lansing Hicks, R.
193
Laplanche, F.
19
305,306
Larsson, G.
Law, T.M.
145, 146
LeClerc (Clericus), J.
270,330
Le Mat, L.A.F.
361
Lee, S.
152
51, 177
Leiman, S.Z.
30
Leipoldt, J.
Lemaire, A.
193
Lemke, W.E.
206
90, 161, 322
Lemmelijn, B.
4-7,72,344,346
Letteris, M.H.
Leusden, J.
72
54,56
Levin, S.
Levine, B.
160
Levine, E.
148,350,353,365
Levinson, B.N.
262
177
Lewis, J.P.
40, 53, 54, 65, 66, 68,
Levita, Elias
216,217
Lieberman, S.
30, 31, 51, 59, 60,
201,339
61,169,173,176,185,260
112
337
151
Lieu, J.M.
79
Lightfoot, J.
Lipschutz, L.
44
367
Ljungberg, B.
Locher, C.
367
Loewenstamm, S.E.
24
Loewinger, D.S. 45, 46, 69, 112, 113
183
Lohfink, N.
Loisy, A.
270
331
Loretz, 0.
Li.ibbe, J.
101
281.
30, 47, 90, 100-102,
104,173,204,237,256,311
Labendz, J.
144
Lachmann, K.
171,348,359,361
152, 374
Lamsa, G.M.
49
Landgraf, A.
Lange, A. 26, 29, 31, 93, 94, 95, 101,
107, 108, 114, 132, 174-5, 176, 177,
454
Index 2: Authors
152
Lund, J.A.
Lundblom, J.R.
286, 289
Lust, J.
128, 130, 286, 288, 299,
301,302,357
Luzzatto, S.D.
79,228,247,332
67
Lyons, D.
Maas, P.
263,264,327
350,353
Macchi, J.-D.
Macdonald, J.
77
Macintosh, A.A.
137
Mackie, T .P.
299
Macpherson, J.
171
Macuch,R.
47,74,86,89,227,228
Magness, J.
99
Malone, J.L.
39
Manilius, M.
269
Mansoor, M.
90
Maori, Y.
26,33,151
Marcus, D.
320,350,351
74,88
Margain, J.
Margolis, M.L.
115, 123, 263,
McLean, N.
McNamara, M.
Medan, M.
134
Meer, M.N. van der

Meinhold, J.
Meiser, M.
Meisner, J.H.
Melamed, E.Z.
Mercati, G.
Meritan, J.
Metal, z.
Metzger, B.M.
Mezzacasa, G.
Miano, D.
Michaelis, J.D.
148
62,73
294,367
361
152,254
37
59
146
273
79
275, 341, 342
304
278
330,331
Michaelis, J.H.
72
Michel, W.L.
337
Miletto, G.
36
Milgram, J.
160,365
Milik, J.T.
112, 157, 158, 177, 314
Millard, A.R.
196,208,211,330
327,330
135,377,382
Marquis, G.
Martin, G.D.
161
Martin, M.
48, 100, 191, 195,202
Mathews, K.A. 51, 77, 97, 100, 159,
160, 191,206,208
Miller, J.M.
308
Mitchell, H.G.
335
Molin, G.
114
Montgomery, J.A.
348
Moore, G.F.
48, 49, 167
Morag, S.
39, 40, 43, 46, 47, 102,
Mazar, B.
261,361
Mazor, L.
252,294,299,314,324
McCarter, P.K.
1, 10, 18, 174,254,
230
30
259,272,275,312,348
McCarthy, C.
52, 59, 60, 65, 242,
244,247,251,350,351,352
McKane, W.
59, 276, 348, 367,
369,371
McLay, T.
142, 143,318,319
McLean, M.D.
206
Morenz, S.
112
Morgenstern, M.
19, 20, 54, 59, 171
Morinus, J.
47,54,55
Moshkowitz, Y.Z.
Muchowski, P.
100
Mulder, M.J.
1, 24, 39, 48, 70, 115,

128, 147, 150-52, 191
Muller, D.H.
Munnich, 0.
361
127, 142, 143,319
Index 2: Authors
Muraoka, T.
Murtonen, A.
Naeh, S.
Nakman, D.
Naor, M.
Naveh, J.
Nelson, R.D.
Nestle, E.
Neusner, J.
Niehr, H.
Noort, E.
Noth, M.
135
208,218
206,207
112
361
196,206,207,208
316,317
342
254,301
261
314
1, 168, 263, 269, 270,
273, 365
152,153
Nowack, W.
156,173,264,274
Nyberg, H.S.
263, 278, 329
O'Flaherty, W.O.
O'Connell, S.
71
O'Connor, M.
339
48,195,198,200,202
Oesch, J.M.
Ofer, Y.
37, 45, 48, 54, 65, 73, 74,
Olofsson, S.
Olshausen, J.
Oort, H.
Orlinsky, H.M.
Owen, E.
Owen, H.
Parker, D.C.
Parry, D.W.
Parsons, J.
Pasquali, G.
Paul, A.
Paul, S.
Payne, D.F.
Penkower, J.S.
346
128, 142, 143
156, 161, 169, 171
327,330
54, 58, 70, 145, 263,
294,350
91
17,219
341.
93,211,251,254
133, 134
274
94
278
263,269,270,271,
279, 367, 373
5, 26, 39, 44, 45, 49,
455
70,72,73
Perez Castro, F.
45,77
Perles, F.
20,219,227,238,331
48, 50, 198
Perrot, C.
Peters, N.
111,361
Pfeiffer, R.H.
162
Philonenko, M.
91
Pick, B.
70
Pietersma, A.
132,137
1, 189,219,224,
Pisano, S., S.J.
301, 311
Ploeg, J. van der
264
Pohlmann, K.-F.
320,335
135,304,305,377,382
Polak, F.H.
193
Poole, J.
337
Pope, M.
316
Popper, J.
270
Porter, J.S.
263,264
Postgate, J.P.
Preuss, E.
306
3,
65,
252,
262
Prijs, L.
Pritchard, J.B.
333
Puech, E.
97
Pulikottil, P.
110
74,78,88
Pummer, R.
74, 77, 78,79,89
Purvis, J.D.
Qimron, E.
100-102,229,260
Quispel, G.
134
Rabin, C.
24,40,45,70,177,357
132,208,217,321,378
Rahlfs, A.
Rainey, A.F.
40
33
Rappaport, U.
Ratzabi, Y.
43
Reed, R.
193
142,327
Reider, J.
Reinke, L.
219
Rendsburg, G.
331
456
Reumann, J.
Revell, E.J.
Reynolds, L.D.
Richter, G.
Ricks, C.
Rieder, D.
Roberts, B.J.
Index 2: Authors
367
36, 40, 195, 196
1, 191,259, 263
348
269
148
1, 18, 40, 53, 66, 70,

73,162,175,176,341
Robertson Smith, W.
316
Rofe, A. 34, 240, 246, 250, 252, 253,
254,261,286,287,288,289,294,
296,298,301-2,310,311,313-14,
329
Rollig, w.
209,210
Romer, T.C.
350,353
Rosel, H.N.
294, 298
Rosel, M.
127, 132, 136, 160, 294,
299
Rooy, H. van
362
Rosenfeld, S.
33
Rosenmtiller, E.F .C. 19, 20, 72, 170,
171
Rosenthal, D.
34
Rosenzweig, A.
55
Rost, P.
300
Rothschild, J.-P.
74
Rowley, H.H.
361
269, 270, 278
Royse, J.R.
Ruben, P.
361
Rubinstein, A.
65,67,103,242
Rudolph, W.
289.351,369,371
Ruger, H.P.
350,353,367
Sadaqa, A. & R.
78
78
Sadaqa,I.
33, 174
Saebe, M.
147,211,286
Saley, R.J.
Salvesen, A.
144, 145, 146
Sanders, J.A.
244,320,321,322,
350,357
74,91
50
208
Sanderson, J.E.
Sandler, P.
Sarfatti, G.B.
Sarna, N.M.
4, 176
Scanlin, H.P.
367, 373, 374
Schattner-Rieser, U.
88
Schenker, A.
24, 146, 169, 275,
283,286,288,299,306,
307,320,344,355-7,367
Schiffman, L.H.
262
Schmitt, A.
142, 143
Schneider, B.
44
Schniedewind, W .M.
102
Schnitzer, S.
53
Schorch, S. 39, 41, 57, 74, 76, 80, 85,
86,242,247,250,251,252,254
Schulz-Fli.igel, E.
134
Schur, N.
77
Scott, M.
348
Scott, W.R.
350,353
Seebass, H.
309
Seeligmann, l.L. 128, 131, 242, 245
Segal, B.-Z.
6
74, 80, 94, 107, 112,
Segal, M.
244,322
1, 174, 177,273
Segal, M.Z.
336
Segert, S.
157
Selden(us), J.
156,160,162
Sellin, E.
274
Semler, J.S.
44
Shamosh, A.
76
Shehadeh, H.
307,308
Shenkel, J.D.
148, 149
Shepherd, D.
112,113,191,197,206
Siegel, J.P.
Index 2: Authors
339,340
Sievers, E.
269
Silva, M.
144
Silverstone, A.E.
73
Simon, L.
19,20
Simon, R.
54
Simonis, J.
337,338
Singer, A.D.
91,94,158,178
Skehan, P.W.
305,306
Skinner, J.
49
Smalley, B.
162
Smend, R.
269,273
Smith, H.P.
270
Smith, J.
249
Smith, M.S.
Snaith, N.H. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 72, 74,344
Soderlund, S.
286, 289
Soisalon-Soininen, I. 115, 122, 145
Sokoloff, M.
150
Sollamo, R.
367
Southwood, C.H.
236
Sperber, A.
15, 24, 46, 48, 49, 51,
53-5,65,67,74,86, 148,149,173,
208,219,227,256,327,335,350
Spottorno, M.V.
146, 147
Spurrell, G.J.
348
Stade, B.
217
Steck, O.H. 269, 270, 273, 275, 281
Steinschneider, M.
193, 196
Stenhouse, P.
75,315
Steuernagel, C.
1, 19, 20, 40, 160,
270,276,280
Stipp, H.-J.
161, 283, 286, 288, 299
Strack, H.L.
115
Stromberg, J.
310,311
Stulman, L.
286,287,288
Stummer, F.
152
Sundberg, A.
130
457
Suss mann, Y.
94,95
Swete, H.B. 128,130,131,156,316
Szabo, A.
331
Tadmor, H.
307,311
75-6,78-9,86,89,148,
Tal, A.
Talman S.
357,378
1, 34, 45, 48, 50, 55, 72,
88,93,94,95,99, 115,155,158,
159, 161, 164, 169, 170, 175, 177,

225,227,228,257,258,310,336,
357
Talshir, Z.
225,283,304-7
44
Tawil, H.
146, 147
Taylor, B.A.
348
Taylor, J.
Teeter, A.
80, 262
Thackeray, H.St.J.
134, 156
Thenius, 0.
156, 189, 254, 270,
273, 303, 348

Thiele, E.R.
307, 308
Thomas, D.W.
206,338
Thompson, J.A. 1, 263, 269, 270, 273
Thorpe, J.
263
Tigay, J.H.
75, 80, 112, 160, 218,
247,249,250,285
Tigchelaar, E.J.C.
100, 101
Timpanaro, S.
72,360,361
Toorn, K. van der 240, 283, 284, 326
Torrey, C.C.
14, 361
Tov,E.
75,80,82,90,94,98-101,
108,114-15,120,122-3,128,132,
135, 137, 146-7, 158-9, 178,
189,202,219,227,255,256,258,
283,286-8,294-5,299,301-2,
304-6,309,317-8,320,323,341,
350,357,360,364-6,367,374,
377-8,379,382
458
Index 2: Authors
Trebolle Barrera, J. 1, 174, 175, 177,
283,299,301,306,307,308,313
247, 261, 262
Tsevat, M.
306,307
Turkanik, A.S.
Turner, N.
142
Tur-Sinai (Torczyner), N.H.
55,
161,197,206,232,263
Uffenheimer, B.
102
Ulrich, E.
26, 29, 91, 94, 95, 97,
101, 107, 110, 132, 134, 137, 161,
169, 174, 178, 179, 186,268, 283,
294,303,310,313,314,319,348,
359,362,363-4,367
157
Usserius, J.
Van der Pool, C.
375
176, 180
Van Seters, J.
VanderKam, J.C.
91
Vannutelli, P.
219
128, 129
Veltri, G.
227
Yodel, F.
263,271,279,281,348
Volz, P.
78
von Gall, A.F.
von Tischendorf, C.
133
151
Voobus, A.
352
Waard, J. de
Walker, N.
276
Wallenstein, M.
33
161,164,303
Walters, S.D.
Waltke, B.K.
263
70, 71, 79, 171, 269,
Walton, B.
270, 271, 273, 274
Washburn, D.L.
94
Watson, W.G.E.
339
286,287
Watts, J.W.
Weber, R.
153
98,99
Webster, B.
1, 18,169,263,269
Wegner, P.O.
Weil, G.E. 54, 62, 64-5, 69, 350, 352

Weinberg, W.
208
Weinfeld, M.
311
Weingreen,J.
1,162,259
Weis, R.D.
286, 287, 288, 350, 356
Weiss, R. 75, 82, 87, 148-9, 150, 231
Weitzman, M.P.
151, 152
Wellhausen, J.
20, 156, 172, 254,
255,273,277,285,348
Wells, R.D.
286,288
Wernberg-Meller, P.
102,276
yYest, M.L.
341, 361
Westcott, B.F.
266,275,280
Westerman, C.
365
Wevers, J;W.
1.32
White, R.T.
102
Wiener, H.M.
173
Wifall, W.R., Jr.
308
Wildberger, H.
332
Wilensky, M.
232,337
Williams, M.
145
Williamson, H.G.M.
115,360,364
Willis, T.M.
230
Wilson, G.H.
195,320,321
Wilson, J.A.
333
1, 191, 259, 263
Wilson, N.G.
Wise, M.O.
193
Wolff, H.W.
331,333
Wonneberger, R. 8, 65, 68, 350, 353
Worth, R.H., Jr.
377, 378
169, 174,
Woude, A.S. van der
177, 179, 184
171,270,273,274
Wrangham, F.
135
Wright, B.G.
Wiirthwein, E.
1, 168, 176,263,
270,272,281,350,353
348,361
Wutz, F.X.
Index 2: Authors
Yadin, Y.
Yardeni, A.
Yaron, R.
Yeivin, I.
112
99,206
251
8, 24, 33, 35, 40, 45,
51,53-4,59,61,62,64,
65,68-9,102,195-6,350
34
Yelin, Y.Y.
26, 29, 83, 107, 174,
Young, I.
175, 208, 211
75,80,90,323
Zahn,M.M.
34,310,327,330
Zakovitch, Y.
348
Zandstra, S.
Zenger, E.
365
Zevit, Z.
208
115, 123, 137, 138
Ziegler, J.
Zimmerli, W.
335,348,365
Zipor, M.A.
59, 60, 350, 353
Zohari, M.
232
Zsengeller, J.
75
459
INDEX3
SUBJECTS
Aaron Ben Asher 24, 44-5, 73, 347
abbreviations 238-9
Abisha' scroll 77, 78
accentuation (accents) 6-9, 62-5, 329, 339-40, 358
exegetical elements 63-5
functions 63
systems 63
affix effect 217
Akhmimic translation 127
Akkadian literature 285
'aleph, quiescent 237
Alexandrian grammarians 61, 177
'al tiqre 34, 55
ancient translations 17, 18, 19, 29, 110, 115-54,272-3,275,347,352,355-8 See
also daughter translations.
concordances 123
definition 115
doublets 305
exegetical elements 117-22. See also Septuagint.
context 119-20
linguistic 118-19
theology 120-22
free 117, 119, 294, 304,305,306, 318. See also Targum.
Hebrew Vorlage 110, 116-17, 122-7, 271-2, 298, 379
inner-translational corruptions 117, 122, 127, 278, 305
literal 117, 119, 144,288,294,299,301,306, 308
paraphrastic 117, 150,305,317-18
reading tradition 41, 126. See also accentuation; vocalization.
text-critical value 124, 135, 139, 143-7, 149, 152-3
antisigma 51, 204
Apocrypha 96, 129, 135, 142, 268, 320
462
Index 3: Subjects
Aquila 27, 41, 119, 132, 141, 142, 144, 145,153,274. See also Septuagint,
revision.
Arabic 332, 339
Arabic translations 127, 154
archetype 171. See also Scripture, original shape.
Aristeas, Epistle of 128, 129, 131
Armenian translation 18, 127
Ashkenazi. See Masoretic Text.
as teriskos 146
authoritative Scripture 20, 21, 25, 28, 130, 140, 159, 167, 168, 171, 177, 182,
184,186,187,189,307,323
authors-scribes 182, 184, 240, 243, 283
Ba 'al 247
Bar Kochba 28, 29, 30, 32, 178, 179, 183, 212
Ben Asher. See Masoretes.
Ben Naphtali. See Masoretes.
Ben Sira 131, 202
BH series. See editions, Hebrew Scripture.
Bible. See Scripture.
block spellings 215
Boethusians 95
Bohairic translation 127
Book of the Covenant 181
Cairo Genizah 26, 32-3,43, 150, 172-3,352,354,358
canon 21-2,129-30,166,177,186-7,284,320-21
cancellation dots. See correction procedures.
CATSS 123, 128, 135, 136,219,379,381,382
closed section. See division of text, into sections.
codex 195
codex Reuchlin. See Masoretic Text.
coincidence 39,53-4, 147, 159, 160, 175, 179, 182, 187, 188,273,307,328-9
conjectural emendations 264, 265, 327-40, 345, 349, 352-3, 355--6, 358
contextual 331-4
linguistic 334-9
metri causa 339-40
terminology 327
conjunctive accents 63
Coptic translation 127
copying and transmission 9-10, 12-18,21-2,27-36,30,66-8, 110, 167-9, 171,
181, 182, 191-262, 328. See also correction procedures; scribes; textual
witnesses.
Index 3: Subjects
463
chronological framework 191

coincidence 329
copyists-scribes 182, 184, 240, 241, 243, 283
correction procedures 9, 30, 61, 202-4
cancellation dots 103, 203, 224
crossing out 203
erasure 193, 204
parenthesis signs 103, 203, 204
textual base 177-8, 202
corrections of the Scribes 9, 59-61, 244, 250
corruptions. See scribes.
critical apparatus 265, 342-3, 347, 349, 350, 353, 366
crux interpretum 328
da'w:; 207
database 24,377-82
daughter translations 127, 133-4. See also Vetus Latina.
Decalogue 6, 88, 111, 181
deuteronomistic elements 88, 130-31, 166, 181, 295, 296, 297, 299, 313, 324
dicolon 55, 205
Diqduqqe ha- 're 'amim 69, 73
disjunctive accents 63
divinatio 328
divine name 103, 121, 195,205
in Septuagint 132
paleo-Hebrew 205
Tetragrammaton 15, 55, 56, 103, 132, 224, 205, 238
Tetrapuncta 56, 103, 205, 224
division of text
into books 309
into chapters 4-5, 49-50
into sections 7, 48-9, 199-200,313
into verses 6, 49, 198-9,372
in ancient translations 198
in Judean Desert Scrolls 198
numbering of verses 49
pisqah be
pasuq 50-51, 221
Psalms 201
sedarim 50
dots between words. See word division.
Ebal 88
Index 3: Subjects
464
editions
Hebrew Scripture
Adi 4-7, 55, 73, 344
alternative 366
Athias 72
Baer-Delitzsch 7, 73
BH 5,38,42, 73,163,331,333,335,344,349
BHQ 7, 42, 73, 268, 324, 344, 355-7
BHS 3,5,38,42, 73,114,331-5,349-50,352-5,379
Breuer 4-7,343,344
Buxtorf 72
Cassuto 6, 344
centrality of MT 365-6
critical 264, 341-76
de Rossi 20, 37-8,
diplomatic 78, 134, 148, 265, 342, 245, 347, 360, 366
Doderlein-Meisner 37
Dotan 4, 344, 347
early editions 71, 344
eclectic 134, 147, 153, 342, 347, 349, 359-66, 369, 367-71, 374-5
editorial conceptions 345-6
electronic 4, 345-6, 350
Ginsburg 73, 344, 349
Hahn 72
Haupt 349, 362
HUB 38, 42, 45, 64, 73, 74, 114, 163, 343-4, 357-9
Jablonski 72
Jerusalem Crown 74, 343-4
Kennicott 34-5, 37-9,344,354, 358. See also Index 2.
Koren 4-7, 55, 72, 344
Letteris 3, 6, 16, 72,344,346
Leusden 72
MT 70-74,365-6
Michaelis 72
Miqra 'at cedolot. See Rabbinic Bibles.
Miqra 'at Gedolot "Haketer" 24, 54, 72, 344
OHB 163, 362-4
Polyglots 19, 71, 78, 344
Rabbinic Bibles (RBI, RB2) 4, 35, 37, 44, 49, 67-73, 148, 342-4, 346,
350
Rosenmi.iller 72
Index 3: Subjects
465
Sinai 4-7, 16
Snaith 4-7, 74, 344
sources 343-4
text base 345
van der Hooght 37, 72
editors-scribes 181, 184, 185, 186, 189, 240, 283, 284, 326
electronic tools 4, 24, 40, 48, 54, 62, 65, 70, 75, 90, 94, 128, 135, 148, 151, 153,
208,219,320350,378
data retrieval 380
limitations 380
linguistic analysis 382
modules 381
morphological analysis 381
Elohistic Psalter 15, 188
emendations. See conjectural emendations.
enclitic mem 337, 338
Enoch 190
Essenes 95, 254
Ethiopic 338
Ethiopic translation 18, 127
euphemistic changes. See exegetical changes.
Eupolemos 131
excerpted texts 109, 114, 189, 320-21
exegetical changes 240-62, 279,282,283-326, 366. See also glosses;
readings, synonymous.
contextual 241-2
euphemistic 57, 250-52
linguistic 256-8
nomistic 245, 252-3, 299
theological 242-56. See also theology.
theophoric names 247-8
Expansions A-F to Esther 317-18
extraordinary points 27, 52, 171, 203
'Eyn ha-Qore' 69
family, textual family 26, 156, 158-60, 170-71, 173, 187-8
Fragment(ary) Targum(im) 150
ga 'yah 7, 44, 63, 73
Georgian translation 127
Gerizim 77, 87-8
Gothic translation 127
halakhah 26, 30, 95, 195, 262
Index 3: Subjects
466
Hexapla 19, 27, 133, 142, 145-6, 153

columns 145
fifth column 143, 145
post-Hexaplaric revisions 146-7
pre-Hexaplaric revisions 142-5
second column 41, 46, 47
sixth column 143, 145
Homer 165, 265, 285
inverted nunim 51, 204, 309
'U_tur soferim 61
Jabneh (Jamnia) 177
Jerome 19-20,41,46-7, 144, 153,317
Judean Desert Scrolls 17-18,25,27,29, 31, 40, 56, 62, 110, 162, 166, 169, 170,
187, 191, 193, 195, 201-2, 263, 285, 356, 359, 365, 373, 381. See also Qumran.
computer analysis 377-82
copying and transmission 191-218
list 97
Masada 27, 29, 30, 98, 99, 108, 179, 187, 212
Nai:tal Arugot 29, 98, 179, 212
Nai:tal I-.Iever 28, 29, 98, 99, 143, 179, 187, 194, 212
Nai:tal Se'elim 28, 29, 98, 99, 112, 179,212
VVadiMurabba'at 28,29,98,99, 112,178,179,187,194,212
VVadi Sdeir 28, 29, 98, 99, 179, 212
kaige-Theodotion 27, 29, 133, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 153. See also
Septuagint, revision.
Ketef Hinnom rolls 111, 181, 193, 210
Ketib-Qere 7, 54-9,67, 173, 220,222, 333,345, 375
examples
Gen 27:3 258
Deut 21:7 257
Deut 33:2 235
Josh 5:1 232
Josh 15:47 230
Judg 9:8 257
1 Sam 17:7 233
1 Sam 17:23 221
2 Sam 13:37 231
2 Sam 22:15 222
1 Kgs 7:45 233
2 Kgs 3:24 231
2 Kgs 5:12 230
Index 3: Subjects
Isa 9:6 197
Isa 45:2 236
Jer 2:20 229
Jer 42:6 258
Jer 48:21 230
Jer 50:44 232
Jer 51:3 224
Ezek 7:21-22 222
Ezek 42:9 235
Prov 17:27 229
Job 38:12 235
Neh 2:13 197
1 Chr 1:11 257
Ketib wela ' qere 56
Qere perpetuum 55
Qere wela ketib 56
Kutim 77
leather 3, 9, 26, 98, 131-2, 193, 194,204,219
libuna 'ah 207
linear development. See textual witnesses.
literary criticism 2, 139, 182, 186, 265, 266, 268, 283-326, 355-6, 363
early Bible editions 363
Ma 'arba'e 35
Ma
67
maggihim 30, 36
majuscule manuscript 133
maqqeph 63
7,9,24,45,65-70,73,244,252,309,346-7,352,355,365
collative
67
editions 69
Masorah final is 67
Masorah magna 52, 65, 67, 69, 352, 355
Masorah parva 50, 54, 55, 56, 67, 68, 352
Handbooks 68-9
origin 66
systems 68
Masoret Seyag la-Torah 69
10,24-6,35-6,41-2, 47, 49, 64, 66, 68, 172, 217
Ben Asher 24,44,45,46,67,69,70, 73,342,344,346-7,349
Ben Asher I Ben Naphtali 44
Ben Naphtali 44, 45, 67
467
468
Index 3: Subjects
Masoretic Text 2, 12, 18, 24-73, 155, 156, 157, 158-9, 160-61, 170-73, 188,
272-4,281-2,337,358
archetype 171
centrality 21, 160-61, 266, 272, 343, 345-6, 365
chronological framework 27
components 25
consonantal framework 25, 41, 337, 358
evolution 35
internal differences 36
copying and transmission 27-36, 191-218
development 27-36
evaluation 22. See also preference for MT.
evidence 37-8
inconsistency in spelling 213-17
internal variants 38-9
Ma 'ilrekhet 67
master copy 30, 31, 188. See also Temple court.
medieval manuscripts 3, 8, 25, 170, 258, 272, 356
A 5,44,50,72, 73,343,344,378
Ashkenazi 38, 72
B.M. Or. 4445 45
B.M. Or. 2375 72, 74
B.M. Or. 2626 72, 74
B.M. Or. 2628 72, 74
Bod!. 2333 44
c 46
C1 45
C3 44
Cairo 29,34,44,45,51,68, 72,73,266,343,344,350,352,364,378
Reuchlin 43, 44
Sassoon 46
Sephardic 38, 72
MT-group (m-group) 24-74, 108, 173, 179-80, 184-5, 187, 190,212-18,
220
original shape 11-12, 171-2, 161-9, 173
orthography 212-18
parallel texts 12-17
para-textual elements 26, 27, 47-62, 375
preference for MT 26, 220, 272-3
Index 3: Subjects
proto-Masoretic texts 17, 23,24-74,76,93, 108, 140-41,159, 166, 169,
173-4, 177-8, 180, 184, 196,211,212,241,274. See also MT-group.
reading tradition 329. See also vocalization.
Samuel 189
specialletters 53
stabilization? 174-80
TMT 24, 346, 365
unusual spellings 216
vocalization. See vocalization.
writing practices 196-205. See also para-textual elements; writing.
Massekhet Soferim. See Index 1.
matres lectionis 6, 27, 40, 41, 55, 101-2,209, 213, 216, 235-6,237,267, 331
Medinfza'e 35
meturgeman 198
mezuzot 21,99,112,205
midrash 34, 48, 61, 122, 150,261-2,297, 307, 313,317, 318
Minbat Shay 37, 51, 69
minuscule manuscript 133, 146
mi?bap 195
modern Bible translations 3, 367-76
BJ, JB 3, 368, 373
KJV
373,375
NAB 228,372,373,368
NEB 3, 11, 368, 374
NIV 373,375
NJPS 3, 5, 10, 11, 16, 55, 256, 277, 311, 327, 332, 344, 372, 373, 375
NLT
373,375
NRSV 3, 10, 11, 15, 119, 228, 331, 333, 334,368, 372-6
REB 3, 11, 368, 372, 374
Nahal Arugot. See Judean Desert Scrolls.
Nahal Hever. See Judean Desert Scrolls.
Nahal Se'elim. See Judean Desert Scrolls.
naqdanim 26
Nash. See Pap. Nash.
New Testament 128, 130, 133, 159, 161, 271, 275,280, 341-2,361-2
nomistic changes. See exegetical changes.
non-aligned texts. See Qumran.
obelos 146
OHB. See editions, Hebrew Scripture.
Okhlah we-Okhlah 56, 68, 234
Old Latin. See Vetus Latina
469
470
Index 3: Subjects
omissions of the Scribes 61
open section. See division of text, into sections.
oral tradition 40, 49, 51, 75, 101, 134, 148, 198, 199,209,264
Origen 19, 146. See also Hexapla.
original text. See Scripture, original shape
orthography 13, 31-2, 89-90, 208-18, 234-7, 364
background 208
MT. See Masoretic Text.
Qumran. See Qumran scrolls.
Qumran scribal practice. See Qumran scrolls.
Samaritan. See Samaritan Pentateuch.
Pap. Nash 17, 111
papyrus 3,9, 193,194
parablepsis 223, 224, 301, 311
paragraphos 103, 200
parallelismus membrorum 201
parashiyyot 48
parashot 50
para-textual elements 47-62. See also cancellation dots; division of text;
extra-ordinary points; paragraph sign.
parchment 195
paseq 63
pasuq 49
Paul of Tella 151
personalnames 16,239,247-8,373-5
Peshitta 11, 18, 71, 151, 273, 274, 280. See also ancient translations.
and Septuagint 152
editions 152
MS Ambrosianus 152
MS London, British Library, Add. 14 512, 151
text-critical value 152
Phoenician 336. See also Index 1, inscriptions.
pisqah be 'em13a 'pasuq. See division of text.
pisqa 'ot 48
piyyu_tim 33, 47
poetry. See Scripture, poetry.
printing errors. See Scripture.
proto-Theodotion 143
Psalterium Gallicanum 153
Psalterium Romanum 153
Pseudepigrapha 96
Index 3: Subjects
471
Pseudo-Aristeas 131
qi$$ah 200
Quinta 143, 145
Qumran scrolls 10, 18, 20, 75,93-110, 140, 155, 158, 169, 173, 182, 184
abbreviated Scripture scrolls 320-21
and ancient translations 124
and critical Bible editions 351-66
and modern Bible translations 367-76
and other Scripture texts 105-10
and Septuagint 136-40
and reconstructing the Scripture text 329
background 94
classification 107
contextual adaptations 103
contribution to research 17, 110
copying and transmission 27-36, 191-218
date 98, 166, 206
discovery 95, 157
list 96
liturgical 320-21
morphological variants 103
non-aligned texts 108-9, 159-60, 187,
orthography 47, 101-2, 105
paleo-Hebrew texts 91, 97, 98, 173, 192, 196, 200, 207
personal copies 320-21
pesharim 104, 114
pre-Samaritan texts. See Samaritan Pentateuch.
scribal practice (Qumran scribal practice) 47, 90, 100-107, 159, 184-5,
188,197,205,218,274
background 100
divine names 103
morphology 102
orthography 101-2
scribal marks 103
statistics 100, 104
sectarian readings? 110
statistics 95, 107, 185
Targumim 148
textual status 110, 160
variants. See Index 1.
Index 3: Subjects
472
R. Meir's Torah 112-13
rabbinic Judaism 25-9, 148, 185, 187

rabbinic literature 28, 33, 36, 55, 112, 165, 187, 358
biblical quotations 34, 63
Masorah 66. See also Masorah.
R. Meir's Torah 112-13
sacred texts 191. See also sacred text.
sections 199. See also division of text.
verse division 198, 199. See also division of text.
writing on papyrus 193
readings 1-2,220-21, 240-62,265--6, 267-82,327-30. See also variants.
alternative 168, 171,225
definition 1-2,219,263-5
evaluation 2,22, 162,164,168,265-82,324-6,328,330,358
age 274
assimilation 279
common sense 281
easier reading 244-5, 247, 275-80
external criteria 271-4
internal criteria 275-81
interpretive modification 279
lectio brevior (shorter reading) 277-9
lectio difficilior (difficult reading) 275-80
preference for MT. See Masoretic Text.
pristine 163-5
subjective 22, 330
textual guidelines 270-81
unequal status 272
genetic 165,167-8,220,266-8,
literary. See literary criticism; Samaritan Pentateuch; Septuagint.
original 10, 161, 162, 269, 272, 276, 280, 281, 311, 330
preferable 281. See also evaluation.
synonymous 87, 164, 168, 257, 268, 281, 300
received text. See textus receptus.
revision. See Septuagint.
rewritten Scripture 21,80-82, 114, 189-90,284,306-8,315,317-18,320,322,
323. See also Septuagint and literary criticism.
Saadia 154
sacred text 9, 20, 184, 186, 188, 284
writing 191
Sadducees 95, 97, 254
Index 3: Subjects
473
Sahidic translation 127

Samaritan Pentateuch 19, 23, 74-93, 155, 156, 158-60, 159, 172-5, 184-8,272
SP-group (1U-group) 74-93, 108, 136, 159, 160, 184, 187, 189, 243,258,
322
and other texts 78, 157
and Septuagint 136, 157
background 75
computer analysis 378
copying and transmission 191-218
editorial variants 80-82, 322
harmonizations 82-3,136,173,188-9,258-9,279,282
ideological changes 75-6, 79, 87-8, 93, 282
linguistic variants 83-5, 86-7, 220, 267, 282
manuscripts and editions
Abisha' scroll 77, 78
Add. 1846, Univ. Libr. Cambridge 78
Giron Blanc 78
Sadaqa 78, 89
Tal 78,378
Tal-Florentin 76, 79, 86, 78, 89-90, 357
von Gall 75, 78
origin 76-8
orthography 83-4, 89-90, 208-9
phonological changes 88, 93, 282
pre-Samaritan texts 23, 74-93, 108, 159, 169, 187, 258, 282
Samaritan recension, 156, 159
translations 76
typological features 80-82, 93, 159-60, 322
Samaritans 39, 159, 209,254
book of Joshua 75, 296, 315
Chronicle II 75
script 207, 228
scribes 26, 66, 160-61, 195-217,219-62. See also editors-scribes; correction
procedures; soferim.
careful approach 184
corruptions. 9, 10, 13,113,117,124,133,159-60,164,185,189,220,229,
236, 238, 266, 278, 280, 311, 328. See also textual phenomena.
errors 9-11,47, 53, 86, 167, 178, 276,289. See also scribes, correction of
errors; free approach.
free approach 113, 184
474
Index 3: Subjects
scribal intervention 9, 188, 195-217,240-62
scribal markings 205
correction of errors 202-3
Qumran scribal practice. See Qumran scrolls.
scribal schools. See Qumran scrolls.
script 206
Aramaic 207
Assyrian 207
background 206
change of script 207
early Hebrew 9, 17, 75, 77, 88, 197, 205,207,227,228,332
paleo-Hebrew 28, 91,96-8, 103, 173, 192;196, 200,205,207,218,219,
227-8
square 28,77,91,96-8, 196,197,205,206,207,227,228-31,237
scriptio continua 196
scriptorium 94
Scripture 181. See also authoritative Scripture; canon.
Gen 305
Num 322
Josh 243,294,314,325
Samuel 189
1 Sam 243, 311
1 Sam 2 303
1 Sam 16-18 301
1 Kgs 243, 306
1-2 Kgs 308
Jer 243,287,288,325
Ezek 299, 325
Ps 5, 62, 201, 202
Prov 5,62,202,284,305
Job 5, 62, 202
Lam 62,202
Esth 42, 95, 243, 317, 318
Ezr-Neh 320
1-2 Chr 42, 181, 240, 321
abbreviated scrolls 320-21
chronology 305, 308
cycle of Judges 165
development 181, 283
excerpted scrolls 109, 114, 189, 320--21
final form 167-9, 181-2, 264-5. See also original shape.
Index 3: Subjects
Five Scrolls 4, 194
Isaiah cycle 165
literary crystallization 182
liturgical scrolls 320-21
Major Prophets 201
manuscripts
layout 5, 61, 201
official text? 175, 176, 185
oral tradition 165
original shape 11, 161-9, 171-3,240, 264, 265, 266,283,311,328,352,
360-4, 367-76. See also Masoretic Text; Septuagint.
parallel texts 12, 17, 163, 164,285
parenthesis signs. See correction procedures.
poetry 5, 61, 198, 199,201,202,210,340
printing 3, 4, 8, 70, 341-82
printing errors 3-4, 7-11, 72,345
pristine readings 163-5
sacred status. See sacred text.
Scripture-like compositions 320-21
sequence differences 4, 309. Seealso textual phenomena.
Num 10 309
Josh 294, 298
1 Kgs 307
1 Kgs 8 309
1 Kgs 20-21 310
Jer 287
Jer 23 310
Ezek 299
Prov 305
stabilization? 174, 175, 176
stichographic arrangement 202
Torah 4, 22, 155, 156, 157, 177, 185, 188
scrolls 194. See aiso scribes; Scripture, Five Scrolls; textual witnesses;
writing.
length 194
limitations 284
liturgical 195
ownership 190
scope 194
Sebirin 7, 59, 67, 336
sedarim 50
475
476
Index 3: Subjects
Sefer Babli 115
sefer ha- 'azarah 30
Sefer ha-Ijillufim 44
Sefer Hilleli 115
Sefer Sinai 115
Sefer
115
Sefer Yerushalmi 115
Sefer Zanbuqi 115
Sephardic. See Masoretic Text.
Septuagint 17-19,71,127-46,152,153,155-6,157-61,168,171-4,180,186-8,
272,280,373
1 Esdras 320
and Peshitta 152
and Qumran scrolls 109, 136-40, 157
and Samaritan Pentateuch 136, 157
auxiliary tools 135
concordances 135
date 131, 139-40, 307
daughter translations 18, 127, 133. See also Vetus Latina.
editions
Cambridge 133, 134, 142, 146
diplomatic 134
eclectic 134
Gottingen 133, 135, 142, 146, 359, 378
Holmes-Parsons 133, 134
Rahlfs 128, 135, 305, 321, 378
Esther, A-Text 138,318
Esther, Expansions A-F 317-18
evidence, 17 132
exegesis 117-22,300
harmonizations 136, 185, 189
Hebrew Vorlage 122-7, 139-40, 155, 156, 173, 182, 185-8, 227,258-9,276,
286-92,304-6, 308, 316-19,322. See also ancient translations, Hebrew
Vorlage.
importance 128, 139-40, 272. See also literary criticism.
literary criticism 136-9, 283-326
literary-editorial differences from MT 136-9, 283-326
Lucian 11, 109, 133, 142, 146, 147, 248, 251, 268, 297, 308, 318, 324
Major I Minor Prophets 130
manuscripts and papyri. See also Index 1.
Index 3: Subjects
477
A 130, 133, 173

B 130, 133, 173
Pap. Chester Beatty 133, 134, 145, 300, 319
s
v
130, 133
130
name 128
NETS translation 135, 381
Old Greek 29, 129, 132, 133, 134, 141, 143, 147, 177, 300-301, 307-9,353
original shape 131, 171
revision 27, 29, 36, 127, 131-3, 141-7, 274. See also Hexapla.
background 141
nature 142
Ruth 130
scope 129
sequence of books 129
text type? 139
theology 120-22
translation technique. See ancient translations.
transliterations 47
Severus Scroll 32, 112, 184, 197
Sexta 145
Shelomo ben Buya'a 44
sigma 51, 204
silluq 49, 64
Slavonic translation 127
soferim 9, 10,26,47,53,60,66
Song of Miriam 323
spacing
between books 201
between hemistichs 202
between verses 198
stichographic arrangement 201, 202
suspended letters 53, 204
Symmachus 27, 33, 142, 144-5, 153, 274. See also Septuagint, revision.
synagogue 45,50,63, 112,134,142,194,197,198
Syro-Hexapla 142, 146, 151
Syro-Palestinian translations 127
Targumim 18, 27, 29, 33, 36, 41, 71, 121, 147-50, 152, 165,272-3. See also
ancient translations.
478
Index 3: Subjects
definition 148
exegesis 117-22, 148-50
Fragmentary Targum 150
Hebrew source 122-7, 149
Jerusalem Targum I 149
Jerusalem Targum II, III 150
Job 149, 150
Jonathan 150
MS Vatican Neophyti I 150
Onqelos 144, 149
Samaritan 66, 76
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 149
text-critical value. See Hebrew source.
theology 121
tefillin 21, 99, 100, 101, 112,205,218-19,314,321
final letters 196
material 219
ruling 219
splitting of words 219
Temple 36, 77-8, 112-13, 175, 177, 179, 182, 183, 187, 190, 256,309
Temple Court 28, 30, 36, 176
Tetragrammaton. See divine name.
Tetrapuncta. See divine name.
text type 139, 155, 158-60, 187-8
textual criticism 2-22, 115-27, 162, 166--8, 189-90, 206, 263--8, 269-326, 37782
aim 265
and canon criticism 20, 284
and conjectural criticism 327-40
and exegesis 19, 283-326, 330. See also "and literary criticism."
and literary criticism 21, 265, 266, 268, 283-326, 330, 355-6
and modern translations 367-76
background 1, 20
critical inquiry 19-20
definition 1, 166, 264
introductions to 17-18, 160-61
modern approach 17-19
post-modern 376
praxis 1-2, 265-6
subjectivity 22, 280-81, 285, 330
textual theories. See textual theories.
Index 3: Subjects
479
textual phenomena 10,219-39,330,382

abbreviation 238
additions 165, 259, 282, 288, 299, 311, 323, 340
dittography 220, 222, 224, 278, 282, 333
doublet 65,122,202,220,225-7,250,257-8,282
glosses 122,259-61,277,282,284,300
haplography 220, 222, 277, 278, 282, 333
harmonization 82-3, 136, 225, 258-9, 279, 360. See also Samaritan
Pentateuch; Septuagint.
homoioarcton 222, 223, 278
homoioteleuton 222,224, 278,282, 289,311,312, 314,321,370-71
interchange of letters. See similar letters.
interpolations 122, 246, 259-61, 280, 282, 284, 300
irregular form 335
ligatures 231, 232
linguistic/ stylistic change 256
metathesis 123, 232-3, 236, 334, 338
omission 52, 61, 165, 203-4,220,221-2, 224, 278, 280, 282, 305,313, 329,
340
sequence differences 137, 239, 305, 309-10. See also sequence
difference.
similar letters (graphic) 6, 9, 10, 16, 58, 113, 206, 227-33, 313, 332, 334,
382
similar letters (phonological) 15, 43, 103, 229, 230, 233-4. See also
Samaritan Pentateuch.
supralinear additions 53, 106
word division 237, 276, 313, 331, 334. See also division of text.
textual plurality 3-4, 107-10, 158-60, 172, 174, 179, 186-7, 343
non-aligned texts. See Qumran, non-aligned texts.
textual theories 163, 169-74, 281
importance 170
local texts 156-7, 172-4, 188
original text 165-9, 171-3. See also Scripture, original shape; Index 2
(de Lagarde, Kahle).
variant literary editions 174
vulgar texts 164, 172-3
textual transmission 12-17, 219-62. See scribes; textual phenomena; textual
theories.
textual witnesses 3-17, 23-154, 167, 328, 347. See also ancient translations;
transmission.
definition 3
480
Index 3: Subjects
development 180-90
differences. See variants.
diffusion 183, 190
linear development 165, 166, 168. See also readings, genetic.
local texts. See textual theories.
recensions 155, 156, 157, 159, 171
relation between them 155-61
sacred status. See sacred text.
stabilization? 175-80
text families. See family.
Transmission. See transmission.
tripartite division 155-9
typological features 100, 113, 159-60, 187, 188, 211-12,325. See also
family; Samaritan Pentateuch; text type.
textus receptus (received text) 11, 70, 161, 266, 342, 348, 351, 363
Theodoret 146,308
Theodotion 41, 143
theology 53, 80, 120-22, 137, 242-56, 299, 301, 303, 304, 382. See also
exegetical changes.
theophoric names 106, 139,247-8, 252
three scrolls of the Law 176
tiqqune soferim 59. See corrections of the Scribes.
Ugaritic 334-8
uncial manuscript 132, 133, 134
Urtext 172. See Scripture, original shape.
variant literary editions. See textual theories.
variants 158, 196, 219, 349. See also Ketib-Qere; literary criticism;
orthography; readings; Scripture; textual phenomena.
addition 106, 224
different types 267-8
editorial. See literary criticism; Samaritan Pentateuch; Septuagint.
ideological 87-8, 108, 299
intentional 220-21, 240, 267, 301
plurality. See textual plurality.
reconstructed 122-7
synonymous. See readings.
unintentional 220, 267
variety, textual. See textual plurality.
verse. See division of text.
Vetus Latina 88, 127, 133, 134, 153,317
Index 3: Subjects
481
vocalization 7, 9, 25, 26, 34, 36, 37, 39-47, 54, 56, 63, 65, 67-8, 76, 118, 169,
209,237,246-7,266,329,333,336-7,358,364,378
ancient translations 126
exegetical traditions 40-42, 65, 246
Ketib 54
systems 36, 42
Babylonian-Yemenite 43
Palestinian 43
Tiberian 24, 42, 43-7, 63, 68, 70, 72, 118, 346
Tiberian-Palestinian 43
vocative lamed 338
Vorlage. See ancient translations; Septuagint.
vulgar texts. See textual theories.
Vulgate 17, 18, 29, 33, 71, 152-3, 157, 273-4. See also ancient translations.
chapter division 49
Hebrew source 122-7
Wadi Sdeir. See Judean Desert Scrolls.
waw 200
Wisdom of Solomon 129
word division
dots 196
spacing 196-7, 199,200-202,219
writing (copying) 195-205. See also scribes; script; textual phenomena.
breaking up words 205, 218
final letters 113, 197, 219, 237
mezuzot 205
practices 191,
tefillin 205
Tetragrammaton. See divine name.
word dividers 218
writing materials 9, 192-5
yatir 54, 216
Zenodotus 61

Emanuel Tov-Textual Criticism of The Hebrew Bible (3rd Ed)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Emanuel Tov-Textual Criticism of The Hebrew Bible (3rd Ed)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

TEXTUAL CRITICISM

OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

For Lika, companion, friend, and source of inspiration

4QCanta (Cant 4:1)

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials

Brief Didactic Guide

The Need for Textual Criticism of Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture

1. Differences among the Many Textual Witnesses

Chapter 2: Textual Witnesses

Proto-Masoretic Texts and the Masoretic Text (m-Group)

c. The Biblical Texts Found in the Judean Desert

Indirect Witnesses: Daughter Translations

a. Targumim to the Torah

Chapter 3: History of the Biblical Text

Chapter 4: Copying and Transmitting the Biblical Text

Background and Chronological Framework

c.vi Vocalization (Reading)

Chapter 5: Theory and Praxis of Textual Criticism

Chapter 6: Evaluation of Readings

Chapter 7: Textual and Literary Criticism

Chapter 8: Conjectural Emendation

Chapter 9: Scholarly and Non-Scholarly Editions

Computer-Assisted Tools for Textual Criticism

1. Differences between Land 1Qisab in Isa 48:17-49:15 (p. 31-2)

1. Presumed original orthography of some verses in Exodus 15 (p. 210)

1. Differences between m + and the reconstructed Vorlage

University Library T-S Box A38,5. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge

Addition of a didactic guide (pp. lvii-lviii).

Smaller changes include:

Several colleagues and students provided me with much appreciated remarks

Jerusalem, Pesach 5771 (2011)

ABBREVIATIONS AND SOURCES

Reference to word explained in the glossary (pp. 417-23)

Abbreviations and Sources

Some Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible

The abbreviations of the tractates in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Babylonian Talmud,

Some Editions of the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible

i1P'Ji1 'El '?.!l

(Tel Aviv: Adi/School of Jewish

Abbreviations and Sources

1n:J '-,rD ii1100ii1

1982; one-volume edition: 1989)

1n:J '-,w ii1100ii1

'::l '-,ll C'iiJ10 C':Jm:l1

Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa Redacted According to the Text and

'-,w p'110ii ii1100ii

A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of 'Miqra 'at Gedolot' Based on

C'01J1m c'p'nll 1' ':Jn:l 10 mmii, C'::l1'?n Cll

'::l '-,ll c'-,wn:J n'1:Jllii

Jerusalem Crown, The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (scholarly

1 Usually the 1926 edition is quoted.

Abbreviations and Sources

Qerusalem: Koren, 1962, 1966, etc.)

C.tl iV01n ,C'iiV.tl1

(ed. Felix Pratensis; Venice: Bomberg, 1516-1517)- pp. 71-2

C.tl iD01n;"T ... iD1n:-r ;"11;"1' i.tliD

(ed. Jacob Ben-Hayyim ben Adoniyahu;. Venice: Bomberg, 1524-1525)

;"Ti100:-r 'El ?.tl

The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1958)

Qerusalem: Feldheim, 2008)

Books of Hebrew Scripture