\"Biblical Text- Yes or No?\"

Karin FINSTERBUSCH and Armin LANGE (eds.)

WHAT IS BIBLE?

LEUVEN

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_VWK.indd III

–

PEETERS – WALPOLE, 2012

PARIS

MA

1/10/12 11:42

CONTENTS PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

KARIN FINSTERBUSCH AND ARMIN LANGE Introduction: The Questions of Bible and Biblical . . . . . . . . .

XI

KLAUS S. DAVIDOWICZ The “Science of Judaism” (Wissenschaft des Judentums) and the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

PART I: BIBLICAL DEBATES YOSEF GARFINKEL Biblical Archaeology Today: 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

LESTER L. GRABBE “Biblical” Archaeology or “Biblical” History? . . . . . . . . . .

25

KENT HAROLD RICHARDS The Power of Naming Conventions: Biblical Literature . . . . . .

33

GABRIELE BOCCACCINI Is Biblical Literature Still a Useful Term in Scholarship? . . . . .

41

BEATE EGO Biblical Interpretation – Yes or No? Some Theoretical Considerations

53

MICHAEL SEGAL Biblical Interpretation – Yes and No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

CHRISTINE HELMER Bible, Theology, and the Study of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

UDO RÜTERSWÖRDEN Concerning Deut 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_VWK.indd VII

1/10/12 11:42

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ROBERT A. KRAFT What is “Bible”? – From the Perspective of “Text”: The Christian Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD “Biblical” Text – Yes or No? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 ANDRÉ LEMAIRE Biblical World: Yes or No? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Regine HUNZIKER-RODEWALD “Biblical World”: Diversity within Unity: Female Iron Age Faces in Palestine/Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 STEVEN D. FRAADE Response to “Biblical Debates”: Yes and No . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Hermann LICHTENBERGER What is Bible? – A Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

PART II: BETWEEN TORAH AND BIBLE Lawrence H. SCHIFFMAN The Term and Concept of Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Alexander SAMELY The Bible as Talked About: Reflections on the Usage and Conceptual Implications of the Term Miqra’ in Early Rabbinic Literature 193 Tal ILAN The Term and Concept of TaNaKh

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Roland DEINES The Term and Concept of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Heinz-Josef FABRY Das „Alte Testament“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Ulrike MITTMANN and Rouven GENZ The Term and Concept of New Testament

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_VWK.indd VIII

305

1/10/12 11:42

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

PART III: BIBLE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY Devorah DIMANT The Hebrew Bible in Jewish Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Werner H. SCHMIDT Das Alte Testament in der Bibel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 Bernard L. LEVINSON The Development of the Jewish Bible: Critical Reflections upon the Concept of a “Jewish Bible” and on the Idea of Its “Development” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 Tobias NICKLAS The Development of the Christian Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_VWK.indd IX

1/10/12 11:42

“BIBLICAL” TEXT – YES OR NO? The Hebrew Bible Sidnie White CRAWFORD

The questions of canon and text raised by the organizers of this conference go hand-in-hand.1 In Second Temple Judaism, there is neither a finally closed canon of scripture nor a finally fixed text of what became the Jewish canon. During the Second Temple period we begin to see development or progress toward a canon of scripture, beginning most obviously with the Torah or Pentateuch (also known as “the Law,” “the Law of Moses,” “the books of Moses,” etc.). The shape of the Torah, I would argue, was in place by the third century B.C.E., when the Septuagint translation was made, although the text was still very much fluid. The Greek translation of the Torah translates the same shaped Pentateuch as we have today, but witnesses to a still fluid or unfixed text (as does the protoSamaritan text, found without its Samaritan editing at Qumran). During this same period the historical/prophetic books were reaching their present shape. For example, we know that before ca. 125 B.C.E. the book of Isaiah had reached the shape we now know (witness 1QIsaa, whose paleographical date is ca. 125–100 B.C.E.), although the text was not firmly fixed. The book of Jeremiah, on the other hand, seemed to have had two shapes (Ulrich’s “literary editions”),2 one found today in the Septuagint, the other in the Masoretic Text, both of which, however, were recognizably Jeremiah. The book of the Twelve Minor Prophets was also taking shape, although there continued to be differences in order (e.g. the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic order) and text.3 Finally, Psalms 1

2

3

I would like to thank Karin Finsterbusch and Armin Lange for inviting me to the stimulating conference “What is Bible?”, and for a very enjoyable stay in Landau. E. C. Ulrich, “Double Literary Editions of Biblical Narratives and Reflections on Determining the Form to Be Translated,” and “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections Toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999), 34–50, 99–120. R. E. Fuller, “The Biblical Prophetic Manuscripts from the Judean Desert,” in Prophecy After the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_11.indd 113

1/10/12 11:47

114

SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD

(considered in the Qumran collection as a prophetic book) was taking shape, although the Qumran evidence demonstrates that that shape was still very fluid (e.g. 11QPsa).4 Therefore, by the mid-second century B.C.E., 4QMMT5 can speak about “the book of Moses” (note singular), “the books of the prophets,” and “David,” and be sure that its audience knew what it was talking about, even though we might not be clear about what was meant by “David.”6 Likewise, Sirach’s grandson in the late first century B.C.E. can say “the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors” (Ben Sira Prologue) and assume that his audience knew what he meant (although, again, we may argue about that phrase “the other books”).7 Thus, I would argue that the Second Temple period is a period of “progress towards canon,” but final canon has not yet been reached. We might think of the situation as communities having “collections of authoritative books,” rather than the later situation of canon, or an “authoritative collection of books.” Therefore, if we equate the words “Bible” and “canon,” then it is certainly not appropriate to speak about Bible or biblical texts in this period. By the end of the first century C.E., we are moving much closer to our present Jewish canon. Josephus can speak of twenty-two books “which are justly accredited” (Ag. Ap. 1.37–41), which he divides into the five books of Moses, the prophets, and the remaining four. Although he does not list the contents explicitly, his breakdown is close to the present Jewish canon, with questions remaining around the edges (was Esther included? Ecclesiastes? Song of Songs? Lamentations?). Fourth Ezra, on the other hand, talks about a twenty-four book public collection (14:45) that again can be argued to coincide closely with the present Jewish canon, but with the same sorts of questions around the edges. But even then, this is not a closed “canon” of scripture, a “Bible”; we are closer, but not there yet. Further, the word “Bible” in English or “Bibel” in German conveys the idea of a codex, with a set of books in a fixed order with a fixed text,

4

5

6

7

Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (eds. K. de Troyer, A. Lange, and L. Schulte; CBET 52; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 3–23. P. W. Flint, “Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran (ed. J. Charlesworth; The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls 1; N. Richland Hills: Bibal, 2000) 307–59. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: MiqÒat Ma‘ase ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). See, for example, E. C. Ulrich, “The Non-Attestation of a Tri-Partite Canon in 4QMMT,” CBQ 65 (2003): 202–14. See B. G. Wright III, “Sirach,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible One Volume Commentary (eds. B. Gaventa and D. Peterson; Nashville: Abingdon, 2010), 566–79, 568.

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_11.indd 114

1/10/12 11:47

“BIBLICAL” TEXT – YES OR NO?

115

found between two covers. All of these connotations are simply incorrect in the Second Temple period, so it is better not to use the word at all. In place of “Bible” I prefer the word “scripture” or “scriptures,” which is based on Hebrew ‫ כתבי הקדש‬or Greek graƒß, which are phrases used in the period itself (e.g. Let. Aris. 155). It is clear that the notion of written texts (rather than oral) is important in this period, and that importance is retrojected into the pre-exilic period, in some circles, as well. The general tradition has God himself writing down the Decalogue (Exod 31:18). Moses writes down all that God commands him (Exod 34:28). A written law is found in the Temple in the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22:8–10). In certain circles in the later Second Temple period, even antediluvian and patriarchal figures are credited with writing down laws and passing them on to later generations. In Jubilees, Enoch learns “writing, wisdom, and instruction” (Jub. 4:17), and his writings are passed on to Noah, and from Noah to Shem, Abraham, and Jacob, culminating in Levi the priest. So writing, the activity of scribes, is venerated during this period, and it is tied to the likewise venerated office of priest. Thus “scriptures” is a fitting term for these “collections of authoritative books.” Another helpful phrase is “authoritative book or text,” although I admit that it can be awkward. It is clear that the Torah, Prophets, and certain other books had authority in this period for various Jewish communities, authority that stemmed from some notion (however defined) of divine inspiration. It is important to keep in mind that for different communities different collections of texts were granted this special authority (e.g. the Samaritans accepted only the Torah). This raises the question of “authority granting agencies.” Who began these “collections of authoritative books”? Where did this happen? There are hints in the tradition that point to Jerusalem and the Temple as one location of authority. 2 Macc. 2:13–15 claims that Nehemiah founded a library, and that Judas Maccabaeus followed in his footsteps. Whether this tradition is factual or not, it points to a tradition regarding collections of writings (scrolls?) in Jerusalem. The Letter of Aristeas has Torah scrolls sent from the Temple in Jerusalem to Alexandria for translation (Let. Aris. 46). Josephus claims that Titus allowed him to remove some sacred volumes from Jerusalem after its sack (Vita 410–419). Finally, rabbinic tradition speaks of scrolls kept in the Temple, against which all copies were measured.8 All of these sources point to a collection of scrolls kept in the Temple in 8

S. Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple Court,” in Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 329–46.

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_11.indd 115

1/10/12 11:47

116

SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD

Jerusalem under the supervision of the priests. But were there other locations, and other sources of authority? The Samaritan Temple and community on Gerizim is another probable location. The Samaritans chose a particular version of the Pentateuch as their sacred text sometime in the Second Temple period, before their final, decisive break with Judaism during the reign of John Hyrcanus. It would make sense that the locus of authority for that choice would be their own priesthood, located on Gerizim.9 Finally, I would like to suggest that the Jerusalem Temple tradition was not as monolithic as we might suppose. The Qumran collection gives evidence for different scribal traditions for the passing on of scriptures.10 Does this point to different (opposing, rival) scribal schools in Jerusalem? Can these different scribal schools be correlated to other rivalries in the earlier Second Temple period, related to different priestly groups, rival calendars, and political factions? Do these differences point to different loci of authority? Answering these questions lies beyond the scope of this article, but finding their answers will further our ability to reconstruct the intellectual history of the Second Temple period. Now, having given what I hope are convincing arguments against using the terms “Bible” and “biblical” in the historical context of the Second Temple period, I want to argue that in the realm of textual criticism, it may be appropriate to speak of the “biblical text” in certain circumstances. For example, in producing a new version of the canonical Jewish Scriptures, whether diplomatic or eclectic, what we are doing is seeking to produce a better text of the Bible for modern scholars and/or the believing community (that is, for example, the goal of Biblia Hebraica Quinta). So using the term “biblical text” in the context of textual criticism is a convenient shorthand that conveys the task at hand, and is therefore an acceptable scholarly usage. The development of the modern usage of the term “biblical text” or “Bible” can be traced back to the early centuries of the Common Era. The adjective “biblical” is obviously derived from the noun “Bible,” 9

S. White Crawford, “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (eds. H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila; BZAW 419; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 123–36; G. N. Knoppers, “Parallel Torahs and Inner-Scriptural Interpretation: The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs in Historical Perspective,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (eds. T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz; forthcoming). 10 Emanuel Tov makes a thorough study of scribal practices found in the Judean Desert texts in Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004).

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_11.indd 116

1/10/12 11:47

“BIBLICAL” TEXT – YES OR NO?

117

which in turn is a translation of the Greek tà biblía, “the books.” Notice that in Greek the noun is plural, rather than singular. The plural acknowledges the “collection of authoritative books,” which became an “authoritative collection of books.” What the Bible was not in the Jewish community was one book, which the English “Bible” or German “Bibel” imply, but rather a collection of scrolls. With the rise of the codex as the preferred form of manuscript in the Christian tradition, tà biblía came to refer to one codex, all the books gathered together between two covers. By the Middle Ages, the Bible was the book par excellence, endlessly copied in monasteries. This is in opposition to Jewish tradition, which continues to the present to produce separate scrolls as well as codices. The Renaissance, which led to the rise of textual criticism of the Bible in imitation of the classics (e.g., Erasmus’s Greek Bible), goes hand in hand with the Reformation, with its new emphasis on sola scriptura. The translation of the Bible into vernaculars, which had begun in the medieval period, now became the established position of the Reformation churches. Luther’s translation into German, the Deutsche Bibel, had profound cultural as well as theological results for Germany. The various translations of the Bible into English, beginning with Wycliffe and Tyndale and culminating in the Authorized Version of 1611, likewise had profound implications for English culture, language and theology.11 It is plausible to argue that it is from this Protestant emphasis on the Bible in the vernacular that our present use of the terms “Bible” and “biblical” comes. Catholics and Jews used and continue to use different terms (“Scripture,” TaNaK, Mikra); the term “Bible” has a distinctly Protestant ring to it. Further, it is among German Protestants (for the most part) that modern “biblical” criticism arises. It is from those two contexts that our present terminology arises. Catholic and Jewish scholars, coming relatively late to that particular scholarly game, merely adapted and modified the terminology. The term “Hebrew Bible,” which is very popular in secular education settings, is an excellent example of this adaptation – it is not a term used by any believing community, but is intended as a scholarly, neutral descriptor. So when we use the term “biblical text,” we are essentially using a Protestant term for a Protestant phenomenon, and we tend to think of the Protestant Old Testament. For an example in the scholarly realm, consider the history of Dead Sea Scrolls publication project. When the first scholars assigned to publish the scrolls began to 11

A. E. McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture (New York: Doubleday, 2001).

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_11.indd 117

1/10/12 11:47

118

SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD

sort out the material from Cave 4, they used three categories to divide up the manuscripts: the “biblical” material went to Cross and Skehan, the “apocryphal and pseudepigraphical” to Milik and Starcky (with Aramaic also as a categorizer) and “new” material went to Strugnell and Allegro.12 Notice that the “biblical” category excluded the Apocrypha, in spite of the fact that half of those scholars were Catholics! The last question raised by the organizers asks if it would be possible for all to agree on more neutral terminology. They suggest, as an example, a term such as “Isaiah-text.” Such a term might work in certain contexts, such as a discussion of the theology of the book of Isaiah, where the details of the text might not be so important. However, in text-critical contexts it would be necessary to be more specific. For example, what if the term “Exodus-text” was used? To a text critic, the question immediately is raised: Which Exodus text? There were at least two text editions of Exodus circulating in antiquity, one that stems from a scribal school that placed its emphasis on strict copying, and another that expanded the text through exegesis while copying.13 These scribal schools or approaches seemed to have developed during the Second Temple period, judging by the evidence of the Judean Desert Scrolls. We have examples of both types of text in the Qumran collection (e.g. 4QpaleoExodm [4Q22] for the latter type, and 4QGen–Exoda [4Q1] for the former), and it is difficult to argue that one type was favored over the other. It may be possible to argue that one type was favored by one particular group, while the other was favored by another group or groups. Tov, for example, argues that the proto-Masoretic Text (stemming from the strict copying scribal school) was favored in Temple circles.14 But at Qumran at least, any overt favoritism is absent, since manuscripts reflecting the proto-Masoretic Text, the Vorlage of the Septuagint, and proto-Samaritan texts were all found in the same caves. Proto-MT and proto-LXX both represent the short (strict copying) form of the text (with variants), while proto-Samaritan represents the expanded form. Which form, then, is the Exodus-text? I would argue that for a certain period in Judaism (precisely this Second Temple 12

13

14

W. W. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, vol. 1: 1947–1960 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 191–239. Ulrich, “Multiple Literary Editions,” 102–4; S. White Crawford, “Understanding the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible: A New Proposal,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. N. Dávid et al.; FRLANT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 60–69. E. Tov, “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in the Ancient Synagogues,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 171–88.

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_11.indd 118

1/10/12 11:47

“BIBLICAL” TEXT – YES OR NO?

119

period), they all were. That is, the shape of Exodus was fixed (beginning in Egypt with the birth of Moses, and ending at Sinai), but the text was not. Perhaps one group of Jews favored one type of text, and another group the other, but even that is difficult to prove, since you have both short and expanded texts, as I mentioned, at Qumran. Was one type (that is, the short form, of which MT is an exemplar) the Temple text, as Tov has argued, and the other a vulgar or popular text type?15 Did the inhabitants at Qumran favor the expanded form? I don’t find any evidence for either of those positions in the physical remains of the manuscripts, although it may be possible to make a case on sociological or theological grounds. What does it mean that one exemplar of the expanded type became the canonical text of the Samaritans, and when did that happen?16 What does it mean that the LXX translates a Hebrew text of Exodus that differs in many ways from MT Exodus? According to the Letter of Aristeas, the Vorlage of LXX Exodus was a temple text. Whether or not the Letter of Aristeas is historically accurate about the translation of the Septuagint,17 the notion that LXX Exodus was translated from a text of Exodus kept in the Temple argues against the idea of Tov that only one text-type (proto-MT) was the Temple text. So was one type blessed by an authoritative body? Or were all of them, at one time or another? Is it possible to tell? The same questions would apply to Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, or Psalms, etc. So even when we use a more neutral terminology (“the text of Exodus in antiquity”) we still have to define our terms carefully.

15 16

17

Ibid., 175. E. and H. Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (eds. S. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215–40; White Crawford, “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” 132–33. I am of the opinion that the Letter of Aristeas cannot be taken seriously as a historical source; see B. G. Wright III, “Moving beyond Translating a Translation: Reflections on A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS),” in Translation is Required: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect (ed. R. Hiebert; SBLSCS 30; Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 23–39, 36.

95536_Finsterbusch_CBET67_11.indd 119

1/10/12 11:47