The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Scribal Culture of Second Temple Judaism

In: Journal for the Study of Judaism
View More View Less
  • 1 University of Kansas, Department of Religious Studies, 103 Smith Hall, 1300 Oread Ave, Lawrence, ks 66044

The Samaritan Pentateuch (sp), along with its Qumran forebears, has deservedly been regarded as a key source of information for understanding the scribal culture of early Judaism. Yet studies have tended to emphasize the relative uniformity of the characteristic pre-sp readings as evidence of a scribal approach distinct within Second Temple Judaism. This article argues that both the uniformity and the distinctiveness of these readings have been overstated: there is more internal diversity within pre-sp than is usually recognized, and similar or identical readings are also preserved in other manuscript traditions. Rather than representing a distinctive scribal approach or school, the readings of pre-sp are better taken as a particularly concentrated example of scribal attitudes and techniques that appear to have been widespread in early Judaism.

  • 3

    On the one hand, D. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), and K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), have used comparative data to shed light on the scribal apparatus of pre-exilic Israel and Judah as well as post-exilic Judea; on the other hand, E. Tov provides a window into Second Temple scribal practice through his comprehensive treatment of the evidence of the Qumran scrolls, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (stdj 54; Leiden: Brill, 2009).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    See E. Eshel 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 (ed. S. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215-40, and Sidnie White Crawford, “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al.; bzaw 419; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 123-36; J. Ben-Dov, “Early Texts of the Torah: Revisiting the Greek Scholarly Context,” jaj 4 (2013): 210-34; and M. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), respectively.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    M. Segal, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Materia Giudaica 12 (2007): 5-20; Zahn, Rethinking, 147-48; Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    See for example Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 220, 224; Zahn, Rethinking, 176; Kartveit, Origin, 276, 280; E. Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” dsd 5 (1998): 334-54, at 351; J. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (hss 30; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), 311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    See Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions,” 340; A. Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery (ed. L. H. Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 30-39, at 31; Segal, “Text of the Hebrew Bible,” 16; Kartveit, Origins, 275-76; Zahn, Rethinking, 147; Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    More details are presented by Zahn, Rethinking, 159-60.

  • 16

    Segal, “Text of the Hebrew Bible,” 16-17.

  • 18

    D. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 260. See also Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects,” 32.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Carr, Formation, 103; contra Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects,” 33, and B. Sommer, “Translation as Commentary: The Case of the Septuagint to Exodus 32-33,” Textus 20 (2000): 43-60, at 46.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    See Zahn, Rethinking, 25-74.

  • 24

    Ibid., 39.

  • 34

    Eshel and Eshel, “Dating,” 234-35. Note that the creation rationale is inserted in different places in Vaticanus and 4QDeutn.

  • 36

    See also Crawford, “Pentateuch as Found,” 133.

  • 39

    Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 194-212.

  • 41

    For this line of thinking, see Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 208.

  • 43

    Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 184.

  • 46

    On the terminology, see Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 14-17.

  • 47

    Ibid., 188-89; see also Knoppers, “Parallel Torahs and Inner-Scriptural Interpretation,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz; fat 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 507-31, at 525-30.

  • 48

    Crawford, “Pentateuch as Found,” 131.

  • 49

    Kartveit, Origin, 299.

  • 50

    For a description, see A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, Vol. 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 62. This point is also noted by Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221 n. 42.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 212; for earlier periods see D. A. Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period (fat 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 210-18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54

    Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221. Note Ben-Dov takes account of the manuscript evidence that not all changes happened at the same time by describing this as an “initial wave” (p. 220) that was later expanded upon.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55

    Ibid., 224.

  • 56

    Ibid., 226.

  • 57

    M. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), esp. 9-12, 26-30, 38-74.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59

    Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 226.

  • 60

    J. H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 81-103; H. J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (bzaw 221; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 20-56; Carr, Formation, 40-48, 90-91. Note especially Tertel’s statement (pp. 54-55) that “increasing parallelism and repetition . . . dominates the literary development of all epics investigated above” (i.e., Anzu, Atrahasis, Etana, and Gilgamesh).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61

    See Kugel, Traditions, 4-14; in more detail, see the chapter by Kugel “Early Interpretation: The Common Background of Late Forms of Biblical Exegesis,” in J. Kugel and R. A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. W. Meeks; lec 3; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 9-106, esp. 27-39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 156 98 9
Full Text Views 177 9 0
PDF Downloads 22 5 0