Looking up the forty or so instances doesn't sound too terrible - it sounds like research. But if you want to shortcut the issue, your best bet is to speak to a librarian at a Jewish library, or to connect to an academic database. Their have definitely been books and papers published on this subject.
Thanks RJ. It's certainly not a problem looking up 40 cites. The problem is that there are a whole bunch of these examples, and some have many more cites. Any shortcuts in general would be helpful.
What about looking at the relevant volumes of the Anchor Bible and the JPS commentary? The authors usually cite both the main traditional views and the latest critical ideas. Once you find the few key articles, they usually discuss the different ideas on the topic in much greater detail.
That's a good idea --- thanks EJ.
i applaud you and your blog's passion for investigating issues of great jewish concern and value.
however, i wanted to tell you that the long standing canard in the orthodox world as such as identifying the "documentary hypothesis" as that which is opposed to a traditional understanding of Matan Torah etc is a touch outdated. the fact remains that contemporary biblical scholars are hardly treating wellhausen's theory as anything of great substance. the source critical divisions are simply too manifold and complex to divvy it up neatly. recension criticism is more where the field is at...
My guess is that some areas of the Torah will divide up neatly, and others won't. But if there are pretty clear demarcations between (say) JE, P, and D, that would be sufficient for these purposes.
From what I understand, recension criticism is very productive if one has early texts, or at least early witnesses. Tov's book Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible applies this approach quite fruitfully. But all that applies only to post-Septuagint, post-Dead Sea Scrolls texts. It gets pretty speculative when dealing with earlier texts.
Am I missing something?
Bruce I don't understand why you are only dealing with the DH, when they are much more fundamental issues that challenge the integrity and preservation of the Torah, such comparison of your masoretic torah to the dead sea scrolls and the christian septuagint. I was not sure in which section I should reproduce the following, but since this is your latest post I might as well just get this out of the way.
Since the earliest complete manuscript of the Masoretic edition of the Torah is very, very late (around the 9th century CE which is like 800 years post Jesus), there's no way at this point that it could be "proven" to be the authentic one. One might ask that were the extreme care and precision that frum apologists mention that Jewish scribes have practiced in regards to writing the Torah in fact true, why the need them for the Masoretes to have come up with their own edition in the first place? And that as late as the post-Christian time period?
Anyhow, as I mentioned before, what we do mainly have from prior to the very late Masoretic texts are the LXX in Greek, the Dead Sea Scrolls material and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In comparing these to the current Masoretic, while a good portion of it is the same, there are quite a lot of notable and dare I say theologically damaging array of differences. And if it can be shown that the earlier texts agree on something, and that agreement disagrees with the Masoretic, but that this alternate version makes more contextual sense, then it is a pretty good argument for demonstrating that in that instance the Masoretic is the one that has been changed. Now, does this "prove" the genuineness of the alternate sources? No, of course not. All it proves is that the alternate is what was common amongst Jews around the second century BCE. In terms of the actual Mosaic text itself, or a Torah version from before this late time period, other than possible short fragments you don't have any.
So, some comparisons then. Taken from here:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/a...aeology/
dss.htm
MT = Masoretic Text
DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q referring to the fourth cave at Qumran)
LXX = Septuagint
SP = Samaritan Pentateuch
QUOTE
1&2 Samuel
For the past two centuries textual critics have recognized that the Masoretic Text (MT) of 1&2 Samuel has much textual corruption. The Samuel MT is shorter than the LXX and 4QSama. The Samuel MT has improper word division, metathesis, and other orthographic problems. Certain phrases and clauses go against the Hebrew grammar rules. Parallel passages vary from each other (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.227-
.
In 1952 Roland De Vaux and Lankester Harding found manuscripts of Samuel under three feet of debris in Qumran Cave 4. 4QSama shows that the Old Greek Bible (LXX) was based on a Vorlage similar to 4QSama. Josephus agrees with 4QSama in 6 places against the MT and LXX. Josephus, 4QSama, and LXX share about three dozen readings against the MT (See Charlesworth,
, 2000, pp.230-31).
The Book of Samuel varies widely and frequently from the Masoretic Text. 4QSama preserves a number of superior readings that help correct errors in the Masoretic Text (DSS Bible, 213). Let's look at some of these.
One dramatic example is in I Samuel 11 where the MT and KJV left out the first paragraph. The Longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter. It says:
"Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right eye of all of them and brought fear and trembling on Israel. Not one of the Israelites in the region beyond the Jordan remained whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not put out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the Ammonites and went to Jabesh-gilead" (The Dead Sea Scroll Bible translated by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich page 225). Then verse one of I Samuel 11 starts.
1 Samuel 14:30
There is a mis-division of words here in the MT. The 4QSama divides it differently which makes better sense. The MT has hkm htbr rather than hkmh hbr in the 4QSama.
1 Samuel 14:47
There is a singular instead of a plural noun in 4QSama. 4QSama is the better reading.
1 Samuel 15:27
There is an omission of the subject in the MT. According to 4QSama Saul is the subject who grabbed the garment, not Samuel.
1 Samuel 17:4
How tall was Goliath? The MT says, "six cubits and a span" while 4QSama says, "four cubits and a span." People don't usually grow to be over 9 foot tall, so the "four cubits"(7 feet) seems the most reasonable height of Goliath.
1 Samuel 26:22
The MT preserves two variant readings by combining them while the 4QSama just records the one correct word. The MT has an ungrammatical reading.
Biblical Texts that need to be changed as a result of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Genesis 1:9
4QGenk has added "and dry land appeared" indicating that the longer reading of the LXX is from an ancient Hebrew text that the MT lost by haplography. The LXX addition says, "and the waters below heaven gathered into their gathering place and dry land appeared" (See Charlesworth, 2000, p.200).
Genesis 4:8
Genesis 4:8 leaves us with the unanswered question about What did Cain say to Abel? The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX have what Cain said. The LXX says, "Let us go out into the field." 4QGenb does not have this reading, but scholars think the sentence dropped out because of scribal error (Ibid., 15).
Exodus 1:3
4QExodb in Exodus 1:3 has "Joseph and Benjamin" while the MT, SP, and LXX have only "Benjamin." Frank Cross thinks 4QExodb reading should be preferred (Ibid., 201-203).
Deuteronomy 32:8
4QDeutj and the LXX say, "according to the number of the sons of God" while the MT and SP say, "according to the number of the sons of Israel." "Sons of Israel" does not make sense here. This is probably a theological change. The 4QDeutj and the LXX seem to preserve the older reading that implies
a god, or guardian angel for each nation.
Joshua 8:34-35
4QJosha locates the paragraph about Joshua's construction of an altar (Joshua 8:30-35, MT) at the beginning of Joshua 5. The LXX locates this paragraph at Joshua 9:7-8. Josephus follows the 4QJosha tradition which is probably the earliest or original order of Joshua.
Judges 6:6-11
4QJudga is different from the MT and the LXX in that it lacks Judges 6:7-10. These missing verses are said to be a literary insertion added by an editor. Here is clear evidence of scribal expansion of the MT.
Psalms
There are a number of additional Psalms in the DSS than in our Bible. Psalms 1-89 are basically the same as ours in the DSS (Psalm 32, and 70 are absent). From Psalm 91 on there are radical differences in arrangement, and/or in different Psalms that have never been seen before (Psalm 90 is not preserved). There are a total of 15 different Psalms which are not included in our present Bible, nine of which were completely unknown. None of the Psalm scrolls found has our present day arrangement of the Book of Psalms.
Psalm 22
Psalm 22:17 in the MT "like a lion are my hands and feet" which does not make sense. The LXX and 5/6HevPs read "They have pierced my hands and feet."
Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but "N" verse is missing in the MT and KJV. In the DSS it is there, so somehow a scribe left this verse out.
Ezekiel
The oldest known texts of Ezekiel are from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scroll Bible states, Small fragments from six manuscripts of Ezekiel were found at Qumran and another atop Masada. All of them and the traditional Masoretic Text fairly uniformly attest the same textual tradition. Only seven minor variants are clearly preserved, though reconstruction according to spatial requirements indicates that in two places (5:13 and 23:16) the scrolls may have had a shorter text than the Masoretic Text" (page 407).
This list, which gives substantially more cases of agreement between the LXX and the DSS in distinction to the Masoretic: http://www.geocities.com/r_grant.../
spappendix.htm
(there's around 200 or so instances listed on there where the LXX and the Masoretic disagree in the Torah, yet the DSS supports the LXX version). Your argument sounds like "The Torah tells us not to change the scripture, therefore, we never would have done it", even though the documentary evidence clearly shows that's exactly what happened, and your own past scholars have admitted as much ("Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (third century) calls these readings "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In Masoretic works these changes are ascribed to Ezra; to Ezra and Nehemiah; to Ezra and the Soferim; or to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Baruch. All these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes were assumed to have been made by the Men of the Great Synagogue..)
MD - thanks for the thorough set of comments. A few responses.
I think textual criticism is a very fruitful area. I have read Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (by Emmanuel Tov) and The Text of the Old Testament (by Ernst Wurthwein). Your summary and examples are right on. And as you point out, a mere discrepancy between the MT and early witnesses like LXX and DSSs does not mean that the other sources are preferred, but only that we need to look carefully at the two texts and try to figure it out.
On particularly interest area is where traditional Jewish sources (like the Talmud, midrashim, and early commentators) quote a verse from the Torah that is different from the MT. That raises some impossible questions for people who insist that the text had remained unchanged since Moses.
My focusing on the DH (and source criticism, more generally) on this blog does not indicate at all that I am not interested in textual criticism. I think both are interesting and important (along with many other things). I just decided to focus on the DH for now.
If you start a blog on textual criticism, I will read it. : )
hmm. Do you mind just making a section for textual criticism where people can posts thoughts on it?
I already have "blogged" about textual criticism of the Torah. But its on my facebook. If you wish I will gladly copy and paste my notes on the matter here on your blog for discussion. (though I don't know which section I should paste them in)
Btw I am curious about what you mentioned here:
"On particularly interest area is where traditional Jewish sources (like the Talmud, midrashim, and early commentators) quote a verse from the Torah that is different from the MT. That raises some impossible questions for people who insist that the text had remained unchanged since Moses."
This is immensely fascinating. Could you please provide me with a few examples of Chazal citing verses that don't exist in the current masoretic Torah?
Just add comments in the comments section. Or e-mail me something, and I'll post it.
The differences between chazal and the MT is covered in B. Barry Levy, Fixing God's Torah. For example, Gen 25:6 refers to Abraham's concubines (pilagshim). Rashi and Gen. Rabbah 61:4 note that this word is spelled "defectively" (that is, without the yud) and derive a lesson from this. However, the MT has is spelled with the yud. There are a bunch of other examples covered in the book.
First of all, you should realize that you don't have to research 40 verses. The Desert of Sinai is the only name for the desert. It is the mountain itself which has 2 (or 3) names.
I looked around a little bit for traditional explanations regarding these two names, and the only thing I found (aside from Medrashim which discuss their respective meanings) was the Vilna Gaon on the 6th verse in Deut. who says that Horeb refers to the area where the Mishkan was erected and the Torah was given in deatil. Thus it is this name which is appropriate for Deut. which is based on that "second giving" of the Torah.
However, I can't say I understand how he envisioned the topography of the Sinai area, or how this explains the use of the name Horeb in Exdus.
It would seem to me that the likely explanation is that the original name of the mountain was Horeb, and perhaps even the Midianites called it the Mountain of God (all such references, except one, involve people coming from Midian). The Medrash offers the possibility that the name Sinai was taken from the burning bush (s'neh). God, perhaps, chose this as the new name, and that is how it is referred to throughout the story of the Revelation and in Leviticus.
The two exceptions are when Moses is described as ascending the mountain to receive the Torah from God, where it is appropriately refered to as the Mountain of God, and when the Torah is describing the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf, where the name Horeb is used. This would seem to be a play on words, as Horeb means destruction.
Throughout Deut. Moses exclusively uses the name Horeb. This can be explained as I brought before from the Vilna Gaon. Alternatively, we could say that is the name Moses (and possibly the nation as well) was more familiar with, as that was the mountain's original name. A third possibility is that Moses used this name out of his great humility, and he prefered not to use the name which had been given to the mountain as a result of Moses' vision there.
Commenting by HaloScan
