Massoretic Text Research Articles

La lutte de Jacob avec l’ange (Gn 32,23-32) dans l’exégèse médiévale

This study comes within the scope of a larger reflection on the great narratives of Genesis in medieval exegesis. It is founded on twenty Latin commentaries, from the High Middle Ages (Isidore of Seville, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, Angelom of Luxeuil…) up to the beginning of the 14th cent. (Dominic Grima, Nicholas of Lyre), including authors of the 12th (Guibert of Nogent, Rupert of Deutz, Rainaud of St-Éloi, Andrew of St-Victor, Peter Comestor, Stephen Langton) and of the 13th cent. (Hugh of St-Cher, Nicholas of Tournai, ps. William of Alton, Nicholas of Gorran, Peter of John Olieu). The medieval exegetes go closely into the difficulties of this complex pericope. Their solutions are interesting for us from the point of view of scientific study of the text, as well as for the lessons we could draw from the point of view of the faith. Following the study of the Latin text (Vulgate), which was available to the medieval authors (especially its differences from the massoretic text), several approaches are analysed. The narrative approach examines Jacob’s solitude, questions about the nature of the assailant, and about the reality of the struggle (spiritual or corporal ?), about the request of the angel, about the blessing and about the prohibition of eating sciatic nerve. The typological approach develops first the allegory of Jacob as a figure of the Jews (his limp refers to those who believed in the Christ and to those who did not) ; it also proposes (Rupert of Deutz) parallels with the attitude of Moses in the episode of the golden calf and of Elijah at the Mount Horeb. The tropological approach aims to draw from the narration some teachings about human soul : besides the commentary of Guibert of Nogent, which is entirely an application of this method, we can find several themes inspired from Gregory the Great : the episode tells us the tension of the soul which wants to contemplate divine realities ; this approach lays out the problem of the knowledge and of the vision of God. The meaning of the proper names (Jacob, Israël, Penuel) is the subject of a precise study from the interpretationes. The commentaries display a wide richness and we could not but admire the earnestness and science of the medieval exegetes.

The text-critical and exegetical value of the Dead Sea Scrolls

This article will analyse a number of Dead Sea manuscripts and/or fragments in order to determine their linguistic and exegetical value. The article will, firstly, address textual material that is largely in agreement with the Massoretic Text – 1QIsaa is a case in point. Secondly, fragmentsthat are seemingly less relevant will be discussed. The less helpful fragments from the Biblical books Proverbs and Job are taken as examples. Finally, highly significant textual differences, such as a fragment from Genesis 1 and one from the complicated books of Jeremiah, will be evaluated.

The text-critical and exegetical value of the Dead Sea Scrolls : original research

This article will analyse a number of Dead Sea manuscripts and/or fragments in order to determine their linguistic and exegetical value. The article will, firstly, address textual material that is largely in agreement with the Massoretic Text - 1QIsaa is a case in point. Secondly, fragments that are seemingly less relevant will be discussed. The less helpful fragments from the Biblical books Proverbs and Job are taken as examples. Finally, highly significant textual differences, such as a fragment from Genesis 1 and one from the complicated books of Jeremiah, will be evaluated.

À propos d’un messianisme qui divise: Targum Genèse 49.8–12

The Haggadic content of Targum Onqelos Gen. 49.8–12 strays far from the Massoretic text and varies greatly from Targum Neofiti and the Palestinian recensions. This study focuses on the messianic features of these sections (messianism centred on the teaching of the Torah, pacific or belligerent). It also examines the part played by TgOnq 49.8–12 in the history of the redaction of Onqelos. According to the author of this article, this section did not belong to proto-Onqelos, but is the outcome of a late reflection (end of the 2nd century or beginning of the 3rd century ce), which occurred in a Babylonian context, on the events of the Second Jewish war.

2 Par 34, 29-33: l’Alliance du roi Josias: nature et protagonistes. Une contribution à l’histoire du texte biblique (Texte massorétique, Septante et Vetus Latina)

The aim of this paper is to contribute to a better knowledge of the earliest history of the biblical text. The so-called “renewal of the Alliance by King Josias” is analysed in the Septuagint (LXX) (2 Par 34, 29-33) and compared first with the same narrative in the Massoretic text (MT) of the Second Book of Chronicles, then with its source in the Second Book of Kings (2 K 23, 1-3) both in the MT and in the LXX, considering also its Old Latin testimony (Vetus Latina). After having elucidated the possible textual corruptions, the narrative logic of each textual form is investigated in order to establish the probable relative chronology between the witnesses. This inquiry aims to examine and to test A. Schenker’s two hypothesis: 1) the Vorlage of LXX may be an older literary Hebrew form than MT, and 2) Vetus Latina may sometimes be the only witness of the Old Greek and attest to the earliest form of the biblical Hebrew text.

Psalm 150 according to the Septuagint: integrating translation and tradition criticism into modern Septuagint exegesis

The attempt to detect Theology in the linguistic deviations and divergencies of the Septuagint (LXX) with the Massoretic Text (MT), presupposes the use of certain exegetical methods. Of course, this implies methods to be used by the modern Septuagint scholar and not the hypothetical translation technique(s) used by the LXX-translators. Therefore, I suggest the scholar should integrate the historical critical method – in a balanced manner, without the incriminating questioning of long outdated historicism - into the modern LXX-exegesis. In this way, I think, we have the opportunity to verify or falsify hypothetical exegetical practices probably used by the LXX-translators and to discover where we are really able to talk about genuine Theology in the LXX – in contrast to the MT. The LXX-Psalm 150, in comparison to other related Old Testament texts, was chosen to exemplify this suggestion.

다니엘서와 관련된 쿰란 두루마리(Q)와 마소라 본문(MT)의 관계와 철자법 비교

다니엘서와 관련된 쿰란 두루마리(Q)와 마소라 본문(MT)의 관계와 철자법 비교

Psalm 22's Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic

Psalm 22’s Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic1 Naomi Koltun-Fromm (bio) Psalm 22 has been central to christological readings of the Hebrew Scriptures since the gospels were written, if not before. Allusions to Psalm 22 appear in all the gospels, but they are most prominent in John. For instance, while Jesus is on the cross, the soldiers divide his clothing among themselves and cast lots for his tunic. This transpires, according to John, in order to fulfill the scripture of Psalm 22.19: “They will divide my clothing among them and for the things that I wear they will throw lots” (John 19.23–4).2 In Mark, Matthew and Luke, the onlookers, both commoners and priests, mock Jesus and challenge him to save himself perhaps reflecting the psalmist’s claim (Psalm 22.7–8) that “All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads. He committed his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him.”3 In addition, in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew Jesus cries out the opening line of Psalm 22: “My God, my God why have you forsaken me.”4 Psalm 22’s tormented voice clearly speaks of the Passion to the gospel writers.5 Later Christian writers, specifically Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Aphrahat, develop the gospels’ christological interpretation of this [End Page 37] psalm. Interestingly, these writers focus not on Psalm 22.1, 7–8 or 19, as the gospels do, but on Psalm 22.17. The third part of this verse, which is often translated as “They have pierced my hands and feet,” is fundamental to these writers’ exegesis. This image of pierced limbs describes for them Jesus’ exclusive experience on the cross. Why is this seemingly appropriate image unknown to the gospel writers? Why do they dwell on the divided clothing, the mocking spectators and the cry of despair but not the pierced hands and feet? Finally, why do only several geographically and linguistically diverse exegetes concentrate on the pierced hands and feet in the centuries beginning with Justin Martyr? This paper will argue that Psalm 22.17’s exegetical development is intrinsically linked to early Jewish-Christian polemic and Christian self-identification. It is only with these three authors’6 apologetic and anti-Jewish polemical works that the image of pierced limbs appears. It is my contention that this passage’s christological interpretation is an extra-New Testament evolution and dependent on early patristic understandings of the Septuagint’s translation. It is an outcome of real, or perceived, early Jewish-Christian debates and most likely originates with Justin Martyr. This study helps illuminate the creation and dissemination of early standardized Christian exegesis for use in active and continuing anti-Jewish polemics throughout the first few centuries of the common era. In order to understand this progression it is necessary first to outline the translation problems Psalm 22.17 has caused scholars and exegetes over the years. I will then discuss Justin, Tertullian and Aphrahat’s shared exegesis of Psalm 22.17 and finally its place within early Jewish-Christian polemics. TEXT AND TRANSLATION: PSALM 22:17–18 (19) Massoretic Text: [End Page 38] 17. Because dogs are circling me; a group of evil ones surround me, [something] my hands and my feet. 18. I take count of all my bones, while they look on and stare. 19. They divide my clothes among themselves; casting lots for my garments. Targum7: 17. Because evil ones surrounded me, who are comparable to a great dog assembly closing me in, like a lion biting my hands and my feet. 18. I show all my sore bones, they stare and mock me. 19. They divide my clothing and they cast lots for them. Septuagint: 17. Because many dogs surrounded me, an assembly of evil ones beset me, they dug/gouge [at] my hands and my feet. 18. They counted all my bones and they stared and looked at me. 19. They parted my clothing among them and for my vesture they cast lots. Peshitta: 17. Because dogs surrounded me and an assembly of evil ones encircled me, they broke through/pierced...

The Messiah At Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?

New wine in old skins. evocative picture from Matt. 9:17 has fulfilled itself regularly in the relatively young field of Qumran research. single example will suffice to reveal the pitfalls for our present study. In the discipline of Old Testament textual criticism the accepted maxim that has provided the basis of all text-critical studies was, and still is to some degree, that there are three textual families in the Pentateuch-the LXX or Alexandrian text, the Samaritan Pentateuch or Palestinian text, and the MT or Babylonian text.' Outside the Pentateuch the text critic has relied on the LXX and MT to begin textual discussions. When the Qumran biblical texts began to be published in the 1950's, scroll scholars naturally began to organize their material by these categories. P. Skehan's Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran,2 F.M. Cross' 1953 preliminary publication of 4QSama, A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint,3 and D.N. Freedman's 1962 study on orthography, The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls, 4 are a sample of the state of the art of the day. scholarly community conceded and marched in lock step for nearly 30 years before E. Tov, a student of Cross, published the results of his own studies on 4QSama in The Textual Affiliations of 4QSama' and Determining the Relationship between the Qumran Scrolls and the

Ambakoum Septante

Ambakum-Septuaginta. The translation and annotation of the text of the Ambakum-Septuaginta is of manifold interest : the comparison with the Massoretic Text, with that of the Ambakum Pesher, as well as the Greek text discovered at Nahal Hever, Oxford, 1990), helps to specify and to clarify a difficult text. Moreover, one may discern the characteristics of the different original readings at Alexandria, followed by those of the writing of the pesher, and finally at the time of the Judaean desert copy, that is respectively in the Babylonian, Seleucide, and Roman periods. Each reader may identify the tyrant alluded to in the Ambakum prophecies according to his own preferences : Nebukadnezzar, Yoyakim, Alexander, Antiochus IV Ephiphanus, the impious priest, or yet another. The notes offer the basis of a commentary which remains within the limits of a review article. The published text has been studied in articles and works conducted within the Septuaginta Workshop organized by Maurice Carrez. We wish to thank especially Mlle Jacqueline David for her suggestions on the poetic translation of ch. 3 and Mr Jacques Loillieux for the Hb-LXX

Is die Massoretiese teks die Ou Testament?

Is the Massoretic text the Old Testament? The equation of “the Old Testament” with the Massoretic text resulted from, inter alia, the Reformation’s sola scriptura principle and the orthodox view of verbal inspiration, and led to a definition of textual criticism as text restoration. Text-critical research of the past two decades suggests, however, that this equation may be a short circuit. The term “Old Testament" refers to a theological concept, not a text, and “the Old Testament” is something different from “the Hebrew Bible”. Therefore, a great deal of rethinking is called for in Old Testament studies.

Hebrew verse: scansion and parallax

Though beset with dispute, wavering conviction and a fair amount of inconsistency, most theories of Biblical prosody exhibit a dominant concern with phonology. Since one at least of the phenomena under scrutiny is metre, this shared propensity is hardly surprising, conditioned as a matter of course by Classical literature and the European tradition, but also by considerable evidence from the proximate sphere of other Semitic literatures. Comment upon the poetry in Hebrew scripture is as ancient as Philo and as varied as could be expected from two millennia of scholarship characterized by evolving method and changing fashion. For the metrical component, acknowledgement of more than one period of poetic production has enabled a chronological hypothesis to accommodate several systems that would otherwise, restricted to the data of the Massoretic text, be in mild competition if not, indeed, severe conflict. At stake is the unit of stress: its identity, distribution and frequency, a phonological quest rarely modified by reference to morphology. A notable exception is the attention recently directed to line internal juncture (sandhi) of which the primary effect is to eliminate or at least blur word boundaries. While the value of this operation for describing an evolution from accentual to quantitative prosody cannot be denied, its practical consequence may be merely characterization of the poetic line as a more or less constant number of syllables. In such an arbitrary continuum the location of stress is no easier than in the admittedly simplistic but nonetheless pragmatic identification of word with ictus. To this end Massoretic accentuation, whatever its shortcomings, has proved remarkably adaptable.

Jeremiah X 1-16: a Re-Examination

Abstract1. Jeremiah x 1-16 has to be interpreted against the historical and religious background of the exiled Israelites in Mesopotamia between 627 and 605 B.C.E. Its polemics reflect their religious situation during the transition from Assyrian to Neo-Babylonian rule and religion. The absence of any historical allusion points to its composition before 605. 2. Linguistic criteria clearly indicate that it was not written by Second Isaiah, but that Jeremiah must be considered its author. Moreover, Jeremiah was very much concerned about the religious situation of the exiled. 3. The passage is composed of four polemical paragraphs, each constrasting the idol-gods of the nations with the divinity of Y. 4. The very logical structure of the Massoretic text is to be preferred to the text of the LXX (and to any modern emendations and reconstructions). The large variations between them do not admit so far

The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of St John's Gospel

It is now over twenty years since Alejandro Dez Macho announced his discovery of a complete text of the Palestinian Targum contained in the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. Even before the first volume of the editio princeps was published, the importance of Neofiti 1(N) and its marginal and interlinear glosses (Ngl) was apparent not only to specialists in the Aramaic language, Old Testament studies, and Jewish Literature of the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic times, but also to New Testament scholars. A particular feature of N which was bound to attract attention sooner or later is its frequent use of the formula Memra (utterance, word) of ahweh in the first chapter of Genesis in place of the Ἐlohim of the Massoretic Text, a feature encountered otherwise only in the Fragmentary Targum (FT). As we shall see presently, the exact significance of the term Memra was once a matter for keen scholarly debate, some asserting that it represented an entity separate from God, an intermediary between God and the created order, others roundly denying that it was any such thing, and regarding it only as a reverent means of avoiding pronunciation of the Holy and Ineffable Name. For reasons shortly to be described it was the latter opinion which finally prevailed and which is now generally accepted as established fact; but in the days before the scholarly debate on Memra was concluded it had been quite common for New Testament scholars to argue that, as an hypostasis and intermediary between God and the world, Memra had formed either the single antecedent, or one of the antecedents, to the Logos of the prologue of St John's Gospel. The presence of Memra in the text of N to Gen. i, and its frequent appearance in the Ngl, has led to renewed scholarly interest in the relationship of Memra to St John's Logos, so much so that A. Dez Macho, McNamara, and Domingo Muoz are all prepared to consider Memra a key concept in any discussion of St John's prologue. With the results of previous scholarship in mind, and in the light of new evidence, it would appear that the time is now right for a critical evaluation of these recent claims.

The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. Part I: The Translator's Craft

The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. Part I: The Translator's Craft

The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. By Leslie C. Allen. Pp. x+240; xii+182. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vols. XXV and XXVII.) Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. 88 guilders each.

The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. By Leslie C. Allen. Pp. x+240; xii+182. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vols. XXV and XXVII.) Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. 88 guilders each. The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. By Leslie C. Allen. Pp. x+240; xii+182. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vols. XXV and XXVII.) Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. 88 guilders each. D. Cook D. Cook Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume XXVI, Issue 2, January 1975, Pages 452–455, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/XXVI.2.452 Published: 01 January 1975

The Massoretic Text of the Book of Job, the Targum and the Septuagint Version in the Light of the Qumran Targum (11 QtargJob)

Article The Massoretic Text of the Book of Job, the Targum and the Septuagint Version in the Light of the Qumran Targum (11 QtargJob) was published on January 1, 1974 in the journal Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (volume 86, issue 3).

New Evidence For an Old Recension of Reigns

Scholars have explained a series of supplements in Paraleipomena B′ (hereafter Par) containing material not in the Massoretic Text of Chronicles by one of the following alternatives: (a) the translator of Chronicles had a Hebrew text expanded with passages from 2 Kings; or (b) Greek passages related in some undefinable fashion to 4 Reigns were added to Par. The supplements in Par do, in fact, bear a tantalizing resemblance to Reigns, but they also differ considerably in vocabulary, grammatical forms, and length; and they presuppose independent contact with a Hebrew text distinct from the Massoretic Text of Kings. The debate still stands at this impasse.

The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography

The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography

Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint

Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint