Texts, Manuscripts, Versions, Canon Eric F. Mason, Christopher T. Begg, Rory K. Pitstick, and Fred W. Guyette 1662. [Canon; Josephus; DSS] Jonathan G. Campbell, “Josephus’s Twenty-Two Book Canon and the Qumran Scrolls,” The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions, 19–45 [see #2018]. C. observes that many recent scholars have moved away from older assumptions about a tripartite Jewish canon in late Second Temple period Judaism, postulating instead that several factors show that certain texts were esteemed as Scripture but that a closed canon was not yet in view. C. then challenges the claim by S. Mason that comments by Josephus in Ag. Ap. 1.37–43 prove that a 22-book canon with a fixed text was indeed standard in the 1st cent. a.d. C. reviews Mason’s arguments and concludes that Josephus’s own approach is inconsistent throughout his corpus and that his comments in Ag. Ap. 1.37–43 must be read as polemical rhetoric in response to Alexandrian textual scholarship on the Greek cultural canon.—E.F.M. 1663. [Tobit] Kamil Jan Kowalski, “Aramejskie rękopisy Księgi Tobita z Qumran (4Q196–200)—historia i egezegeza [The Aramaic Manuscripts of the Book of Tobit from Qumran (4Q196–200): History and Exegesis],” BibAn 7 (2017) 323–45. The year 1995 was a pivotal one for research on the Book of Tobit as the year in which the Aramaic manuscripts of the book that had been discovered at Qumran were first published. In this article, K. traces the history of the manuscripts’ discovery in Qumran Cave 4 in 1952, the following long process leading to their publication, and the effect of that publication on the renewal of Tobit scholarship. The article’s first part describes the initial publication of the manuscripts and subsequent works in which the texts of the manuscripts were cited together with translations of these. In his next section, K. provides details concerning the current condition of the manuscripts and reviews their respective contents. Next, he explores the topic of the intertextuality of the book, here focusing on Greek and Latin intertextual references known prior to 1952. The fourth section of K.’s article presents a status quaestionis concerning selected issues in Tobit scholarship and how these have been impacted by the discovery and publication of the manuscripts 4Q196–200. In particular, he revisits the questions of the original language of the Book of Tobit, its unity, as well as its origins and the influence of ANE culture (particularly the Words of [End Page 588] Ahiqar) upon its structure and content. The final part of the article compares the Aramaic fragments of the book from Qumran with its two extant Greek versions—one longer, the other shorter—and provides a summary of K.’s major findings. The purpose of the article is to highlight the significance of the discovery and publication of 4Q196–200 for stimulating research on the Book of Tobit and to survey the history of that research from 1952 until today. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] 1664. [DSS; Biblical Text Criticism] Corrado Martone, “All the Bibles We Need: The Impact of the Qumran Evidence on Biblical Lower Criticism,” The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions, 47–64 [see #2018]. M. notes that classical scholarship differs from biblical scholarship by not distinguishing between what the latter often calls “lower” criticism and “higher” criticism; and points to the DSS as providing important reminders about the importance of philology. M. also critiques the contemporary hesitancy regarding textual emendation even when problems are obvious in a text. In this connection, he surveys several passages in which earlier proposals for emendations were later confirmed by Qumran manuscripts and points out that modern translation committees often follow readings in Qumran texts (rather than the MT) without disclosing their reasons for doing so.—E.F.M. 1665. [Targums; Ephrem] Craig E. Morrison, “Il cuore perfetto ( ) di Abramo nella letteratura targumica e cristiana antica,” RSB 26 (2014) 431–51. In this survey of the exegetical treatments of Abraham’s “merit” (Genesis 22) found in various Targums and Ephrem of Nisibis, M. considers interpretations in the Targums in light of their...
Read full abstract
Dec 15, 2019
Open Access