I have previously engaged with Rabbi Meir and his master copies in more detail elsewhere.1 In this article, I would like to come back to one particular variant reading attributed to Rabbi Meir that illuminates how closely related the textual and interpretative histories of the Hebrew Bible can be. In the first part of my article, I will describe different types of variant readings that occur in the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible and explain why they are important for the interpretative history of it. In the second part, I will explain who Rabbi Meir was and why he is of importance of the textual history of the Hebrew Bible. In the third part, I will discuss one variant reading in Isa 21:11, which is attributed to a manuscript of Rabbi Meir in more detail. At the end of my article, I will draw some conclusions about how a seemingly insignificant variant reading can strongly affect the history of interpretation of a particular biblical text.
1. Textual Variants and Their Impact on the Interpretative History of the Hebrew Bible
I distinguish several categories of variant readings in the textual history of the Jewish scriptures.2 The most basic distinctions are between orthographic and textual variants, and between secondary and original readings. To identify original readings is subjective, especially if multiple different variant readings exist. Orthographic readings are of little importance for the interpretative history of the Hebrew Bible. However, alterations to the scriptural text by copyists or translators had a significant impact on how the biblical text was read and understood. Secondary variants can go back to
scribal errors,
editorial activities,
linguistic adjustment and actualization,
harmonization,
abbreviation (especially in the case of scribal excerpts),
expansion,
rewriting/redaction,
compilation,
recension,
exegesis/interpretation.
How much these types of secondary variants in the transmission of the biblical text participate in the overall modes of text production in the Ancient Near East becomes evident when the above list is compared to the modes of text production described by Karel van der Toorn: transcription, invention, compilation, expansion, adaption, and integration.3
If the majority of the readings of a textual witness are harmonizing, erroneous, or expansive, this textual witness should be characterized as being harmonizing, erroneous, or expansive, or a combination of any of the above characterizations as a whole.
(1) An erroneous text is thus a text the majority of whose secondary readings go back to scribal error. An example is the Masoretic Text of the book of Hosea.
(2) A harmonizing text is intertextual in nature and is characterized by harmonizations of one passage to another one. An example is the Qumran manuscript 4QDeutn (4Q41). Among the fifty-one variant readings of 4QDeutn towards the Masoretic Text (MT), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Septuagint (LXX), Eshel4 identified seventeen harmonizing readings. These harmonizing readings are especially common in Deut 5:6–21 and adjust the deuteronomic Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, to the one in Exod 20:2–17. The largest of these harmonizations can be found in the Sabbath command at the end of Deut 5:15, which is taken from Exod 20:11a.5 The two versions of the Decalogue give different reasons for the Sabbath command: In MT-Deut 5:15, the Sabbath commemorates that the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt. In MT Exod 20:11, the Sabbath commemorates that the Lord rested on the seventh day after six days of creating the world. Given these differences, the scribe of 4QDeutn, or the scribe of his Vorlage, have combined the two reasons given in MT-Deut und MT-Exod by inserting a part of the Exodus Decalogue into the Deuteronomy Decalogue, resulting in a text that gives both reasons for the Sabbath command.
(3) An editorial text is characterized by small textual changes of usually a single word or less. These achieve linguistic, stylistic, and orthographic alterations as well as changes, which may correct inconsistencies.6
(4) Linguistic actualizations are adjustments in the language of a given text either in grammar, syntax, or vocabulary. An example can be found in 1 Sam 20:34 where MT reads
(5) Whether a text should be described as expansive, redactional, or a rewriting is often difficult to decide. Depending on how many expansions a text includes, and depending on the coherence of these expansions, I would characterize it either as expansive or as a redaction, that is, as a variant literary edition. If a biblical text includes many expansions which are disconnected from each other and accumulated to it in a long time, it should be characterized as expansive. Examples are the pre-Samaritan manuscripts from the Qumran library and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) which includes various expansions without argumentative coherence.8
(6) If the expansions of a text and other secondary readings form a coherent layer of text for which one author or group of authors is responsible, it should be described as a variant literary edition or redaction. The distinction between such a variant literary edition or redaction from a rewriting, also characterized as “rewritten Bible”9, is a matter of degree. From a certain point onwards, the expansions and alterations to a base text become so significant that a new literary work is born. An example for a redaction or variant literary edition is the Masoretic text of the book of Jeremiah. Examples for rewritings include the book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, whose textual changes to the Torah are even more extensive than the ones applied to the book of Jeremiah by MT-Jeremiah. The grey area between rewriting on the one hand and redaction or variant literary edition on the other hand is enormous.
(7) An abbreviated text deletes individual passages out of a biblical book. The Canticles manuscript 4QCanta, for example, erases Canticles 4:8–6:10. An excerpted text, on the other hand, reduces a biblical book to a collection of several select passages for liturgical or other purposes. An example is 4QDeutn which includes now only Deut 8:5–10 and 5:1–6:1.
(8) Examples for compilational texts are various Psalms manuscripts from Qumran which include a different repertoire and sequence of Psalms as indicated in this list:
MT-Ps (for MT-Ps the reader is referred to its critical editions)
11QPsa (… Ps 101–103→… →109→… →118→104→147→105→146→148→… →121–132→119→135→136+118:1, 15, 16, 8, 9, X, 29?→145→154→Plea for Deliverance→Ps 139→137–138→Sir 51:13–30→Apostrophe to Zion→Ps 93→141→133→144→155→142–143→149–150→Hymn to the Creator→2 Sam 23,[1–]7→David’s Compositions→Ps 140→134→151A→ 151B …)
11QPsb (Ps 77→78; 119; 118;1, 15–16; Plea for Deliverance; Apostrophe to Zion; Ps 141→133→144)
4QPse (Ps 76→77; 78; 81; 86; 88; 89; 103→109; 114; 115→116; 118→104; 105→146; 120; 125→126; 129→130)
4QPsa (Ps 5→6; 25; 31→33; 34→35→36; 38→71; 47; 53→54; 56; 62→63; 66→67; 69)
4QPsq (Ps 31→33[→34→]35)
4QPsb (Ps 91[→]92[→]93[→]94; 96; 98; 99[→]100; 102→103[→]112; 113; 115; 116; [117→]118)
4QPsd (Ps 106→147→104)
4QPsf (Ps 22; 107; 109→Apostrophe to Zion; Eschatological Hymn[→]Apostrophe to Judah)
4QPsk (Ps 135[→]99)
(9) A recensional text, or recension, adjusts one biblical text to another one. An example among the Hebrew biblical Dead Sea Scrolls is 5QDeut: in this manuscript a later hand added four corrections toward the text of LXX-Deut. As these later adjustments seem to be systematic, they can be described as creating a recension toward to the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX-Deut.
(10) Exegetical readings occur often in the Qumran Pesharim and other interpretative texts, as well as biblical quotations in Second Temple and rabbinic literature, which alter the text quoted in their lemmata guided by their interpretations. But exegetical readings are not restricted to quotations of the Jewish scriptures in commentary literature and elsewhere. They occur in biblical manuscripts as well.10 An example can be found in Qoh 5:5: Because MT-Qoh wants to avoid the impression of saying something negative about God, it changes the
My list of examples shows that, next to exegetical readings, other forms of textual variation are important for the interpretative history of the Hebrew Bible. Even variant readings that developed by way of scribal error facilitated new interpretations of biblical verses. Often, even the difference of one character was enough to evoke new meaning. An example for this phenomenon is a reading that tractate Taanit 1.1 (64a) of the Palestinian Talmud (Talmud yerushalmi) attributes to an Isaiah Scroll of Rabbi Meir. To be able to understand this passage, it is necessary to explain who Rabbi Meir was and how the readings attributed to him in rabbinic literature need to be understood.
2. Rabbi Meir and the Readings Attributed to Him
Rabbi Meir11 belonged to the third generation of Tannaim (second century CE). He is recognized as one of the most important rabbis of his time and is known both for his halakhic and haggadic achievements. Rabbi Meir was a scribe by profession12 and various rabbinic texts mention highly respected copies of the Torah, Isaiah, and Psalms in his possession. BerR 9.5; 20:20; 94.9, Midrash Bereshit Rabbati on Gen 45:8, and y. Taan. 1.1 (64a) attest to particular variant readings which are attributed to a Torah Scroll of Rabbi Meir and his copy of Isaiah.
These readings of Rabbi Meir have been subject to surprisingly little scholarly attention.13 Among the few existing studies, which address Meir’s readings, only a limited number draw some overall conclusions. Nevertheless, scholarly opinion differs widely regarding the character of Rabbi Meir’s variants and of his biblical text.
Nehemias Brüll viewed the variants as a result of textual alterations made by Rabbi Meir for interpretative reasons.14 Other scholars think that either all five variants15, or at least a part of them16, were marginal notes in proto-Masoretic master copies in the manner of Alexandrian scholia17 and/or of homiletical character18 by which Rabbi Meir collected divergent readings from different scrolls.
Shortly after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Saul Lieberman introduced the idea that Rabbi Meir might have owned proto-Masoretic scrolls, but that to satisfy the demand of his customers he “copied the vulgate, the text to which the public was accustomed.”19 Rabbi Meir’s scrolls were “copies of the average vulgata of the Jerusalem type.”20 Several scholars variegated Lieberman’s theory. Based on a comparison with 1QIsaa, Edward Y. Kutscher thinks that Rabbi Meir possessed copies of the Bible influenced by the popular orthography vernacular texts.21 Jonathan P. Siegel argues that the Torah scroll of Rabbi Meir reflects “some ancient Palestinian manuscript tradition” not “entirely in conformity with other texts of his day.”22 Similarly, van Seters describes the Biblical scrolls of Rabbi Meir as texts that “correspond not entirely with the MT,” but rejects Lieberman’s theory of vulgar texts.23
A general problem with all the models described above is that their conclusions are based on very limited evidence. With only five preserved variant readings of Rabbi Meir, of which four are from Genesis and one from Isaiah, not much can be said about the textual character of Meir’s biblical manuscripts. Even the Minor Prophets scroll from Wadi Muraba‛at (MurXII), which common scholarly opinion regards as a classic example for an early proto-Masoretic text,24 includes 23 orthographic and 28 textual variants toward the text of MTL in 3,803 preserved (partial) words. Nevertheless no one would characterize MurXII as a vulgar copy or as orthographically different from MT. The Hebrew text of MT-Genesis includes 32,046 words, the Hebrew text of MT-Isaiah comes up to 25,608 words. With only four variants for Genesis and one for Isaiah, lack of evidence precludes almost any conclusion about the textual and orthographic character of Rabbi Meir’s biblical master copies for these two books.
A special focus of the discussion about Rabbi Meir’s Torah scroll was its relation to the Severus Scroll. The first one to see a parallel between the two texts was Moshe Ha-Darshan (Midrash Bereshit Rabbati on Gen 45:8) in the eleventh century. David Kimchi (1160–1265) pointed to such a connection in his commentary to the book of Genesis as well (on Gen 1:31).25 In modern times, several authors have emphasized the close relationship of the Severus Scroll with Rabbi Meir’s Torah,26 or have claimed the two to be identical.27 Most publications though argue for a somewhat more vague relationship between the Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah.28 Joshua E. Burns regards their connection as a part of “Masoretic legend.”29 I myself have concluded that a single agreement between Rabbi Meir’s Torah manuscript and the Severus Scroll is not enough evidence to construct any textual relation between these lost manuscripts. This is especially the case as the agreement in question regards a spelling convention and is thus orthographic in nature.30
In the following, I will summarize some of the results of my study on Rabbi Meir’s variant readings. As part of his work as a scribe, Meir made notes in his master copies about alternate readings that he encountered during his career as a scribe. Some of these notifications are quoted in various rabbinic texts. It is unlikely though that the various rabbis who refer to readings of Rabbi Meir in rabbinic literature had access to his personal scrolls. R. Samuel b. Nahman (third to fourth century) claims, for example, that when he was a child, R. Simeon b. R. Eleazar had taught him a reading of Rabbi Meir (BerR 9.5). While the possibility of such an oral transmission should never be neglected in rabbinic circles, the tiny and precise textual details that the variants in question concern relate to a written transmission of Rabbi Meir’s variant readings. It is thus more probable that a variant list of Rabbi Meir’s readings existed in several copies in rabbinic times. Various rabbis had access to these copies at different times and in different locations. Two readings attributed to Rabbi Meir provide more information about how this variant list worked. In both cases, the rabbinic texts in question attribute two different readings for the same biblical reference to Rabbi Meir. The quotations of these readings are reminiscent of the structure of the Severus Scroll variant list as well as of other variant lists quoted in rabbinic literature.31 In a protasis, the reading of MT is quoted and in an apodosis the variant reading noted by Rabbi Meir is given.32
It seems likely that various rabbis and rabbinic texts perused a variant list which collected various variant readings of Rabbi Meir. This variant list most likely included more variant readings than quoted in rabbinic literature. It was probably not restricted to the Torah because a variant reading in Isa 21:11 is attributed to Rabbi Meir as well. The rabbis must have selected those readings out of the Rabbi Meir variant list for quotation that were of interpretative interest to them, but ignored the rest.
3. The Text of Isa 21:11 according to Rabbi Meir’s Isaiah Scroll (y. Taan 1.1 [64a])
Tractate Taanit (1.1 [64a]) in the Palestinian Talmud (Talmud yerushalmi) includes an exegetical discussion about the meaning of Isa 21:11:
Said R. Haninah son of R. Abbahu, “In the book of R. Meir they found that it was written, ‘The oracle concerning Dumah, [that is,] the oracle concerning Rome (
משא דומה משא רומי , mass’a dumah, mass’a romi). One is calling to me from Seir [Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night?]’” (Is. 21:11) … Said R. Yohanan, “One is calling to me because of Seir.” … Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “’To me.’ From whence will there a match for me? ‘From Seir.’” … Said R. Joshua b. Levi, “If someone should say to you, ‘Where 148 is your God,’ say to him, ‘He is in a(the) great city in Edom [in Rome],’ What is the scriptural basis for this view? ‘One is calling to me from Seir’.” (Is. 21:11)33
As already detailed above, y. Taan. 1.1 (64a) attributes two different readings to Rabbi Meir’s scroll: the MT of Isa 21:11 and a variant reading. To quote both readings was necessary in y. Taan. 1.1 (64a) because the immediate context of the Rabbi Meir reference did not provide the MT text of Isa 21:11. Y. Taan. 1.1 thus included both the MT reading and the alternate reading that Rabbi Meir had noted in his master copy. The list below shows how Rabbi Meir’s reading relates to the most important textual witnesses of the Book of Isaiah. Manuscript MTL represents in my below list the Masoretic text.34
Rabbi Meir’s reading according to y. Taan. 1.1 (64a):
1QIsaa:
משא דומה (mass’a dumah)4QIsab:
משא דו]מ̇ה̇ (mass’a du]mah)MTL:
מַשָּׂא דּוּמָה (mass’a dumah)MTKenn187
משא גיא (mass’a gi’a)MTDeRossi20, 380marg:
משא אדום (mass’a ’dom)MTDeRossi319:
רומה (rumah)LXX:
Τὸ ὅραμα τῆς Ιδουμαίας (To horama tēs Idoumaias, “the vision of Iudmea”)Aquila: Duma (according to Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah ad loc.)
Tg Neb:
מטל כס דלוט לאשקאה ית דומה (mital kas delut le’ashk’a yat dumah, “from the burden of the desolate, to drink the cup of Edom”)V: onus Duma
P:
ܡܫܩܠܐ ܕܕܘܡܐ (mešqālā d-dūmā, “the burden/oracle of Edom”)
The readings of LXX and MTDeRossi20, 380marg as well as MTKenn187 show that the word
Although the reading of Rabbi Meir’s Isaiah scroll is repeatedly quoted in scholarly discussions about the Rabbinic identification of Edom as Rome,38 Jerome’s remarks about Jewish readings of Isa 21:11 are mostly discussed in early treatments of Rabbi Meir’s Torah but enjoy less attention today:39
Besides what is said according to history: because of the word-similarity and the fact that resh and daleth are not much different from one another, some among the Hebrews read Rome instead of Duma because they want the prophecy to be directed against the Roman rule, out of their wrongful conviction by which they always consider the name of Idumea to indicate the Romans. Duma, however, is to be translated as “silence.” (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, on Isa 21:11–12)40
The Jews vainly dream that this prophecy is against the city of Rome and the Roman sovereignty; and they hold that in ‘the burden of Dumah’ in Isaiah [21:11], by a tiny alteration in the crown of a letter, Resh can be read for Dalet, so that the word becomes “Roma”; for in their language the letter Waw is used for both u and o.41 (Jerome, Commentary on Obadiah, on Ob 1:1)
In the Commentary on Obadiah, Jerome does not refer to actual manuscripts but talks about a Jewish text-critical emendation of his time which allowed to identify Duma in Isa 21:11 as Roma, or Rome. But in his Commentary on Isaiah, Jerome argues slightly different. He accuses “some Hebrews” of reading Roma instead of Duma, because of their zeal against Rome, thereby confusing the letters dalet and resh that bear significant similarity. That Jerome uses the word legunt seems to imply the reading of a written text.42 Jerome attests thus to a manuscript tradition which is very close to Rabbi Meir’s variant reading
Further evidence for the variant reading
Given the cumulative evidence of Jerome’s testimony, y. Taan. 1.1 (64a), and MTDeRossi319, it is likely that Rabbi Meir’s reading
Originally, Rabbi Meir’s variant might have gone back to a scribal error, a confusion of the Hebrew character dalet and resh:
By the time of Rabbi Meir, what began as scribal corruption gained an alternate meaning though. This is particularly evident in the reading attributed to Rabbi Meir. While the manuscripts to which Jerome referred apparently read
A post-Herodian book-hand, reconstructed by Ada Yardeni from the Wadi Murabba‛at Genesis fragments, demonstrating the similarities between dalet (above) and resh (below).52
4. Conclusions
The example of Rabbi Meir’s variant reading in Isa 21:11 shows that a seemingly minor variant reading that goes back to a scribal error can impact the interpretative history of a given biblical text significantly. It can create a new signification for a given biblical text that was not intended in the biblical text itself. In the case of Isa 21:11, Rabbi Meir’s reading reflects a popular understanding of the prophetic oracle in Isa 21:11–12.
I have consciously chosen the example of Rabbi Meir’s reading in Isa 21:11 instead of engaging with a variant literary edition of a biblical text or exegetical variant readings in the biblical text cited by an ancient Jewish commentary. While these types of variants are of obvious importance for the Hebrew Bible’s interpretative history, they are only one part of the much more extensive interpretative process that is documented in the textual transmission of the Jewish Scriptures. As this more extensive interpretative process is mostly ignored in studies of the Jewish Scriptures’ interpretative history, the article has drawn attention to this important part of the reception history of the Hebrew Bible. The textual history of the Jewish Scriptures is an important part of its interpretative history and should not be neglected by scholars who are interested in it.
Another often neglected area of the Hebrew Bible’s reception history are its ancient translations. As each translation is necessarily also an interpretation, all biblical translations preserve evidence of how a given biblical text was understood by its translator(s). The study of these translations, however, would require a separate study that goes beyond what is possible in this brief article.
Bibliography
Arndt, Timotheus. “Zur Tora des Rabbi Me’ir: Bemerkungen zu Uwe Glessmer.” Mitteilungen und Beiträge der Forschungsstelle Judentum 12–13 (1997): 87–91.
Avemarie, Friederich. “Esaus Hände, Jakobs Stimme: Edom als Sinnbild Roms in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur.” In Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden, edited by Reinhard Feldmeier and Ulrich Heckel, 177–210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
Brüll, Nehemias. “R. Meir.” Jahrbücher für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 1 (1874): 235–236.
Burns, Joshua Ezra. “The Synagogue of Severus: Commemorating the God of the Jews in Classical Rome.” Henoch 37 (2015): 101–118.
Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Cohen, Gerson D. “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Jewish Thought.” In Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures, 243–269. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.
Cohen, Naomi Goldstein. “Rabbi Meir, a Descendant of Anatolian Proselytes.” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 51–59.
de Rossi, Giovanni B. Scholia critica in V. T. libros seu supplementa ad varias sacri textus lectiones. Parma: Ex regio typographeo, 1793.
de Rossi, Giovanni B. Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti. 5 volumes. Parma: Regio, 1784–1788.
Duncan, Julie A. “Excerpted Texts of Deuteronomy at Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 18 (1997–98): 43–62.
Elitsur, Yoel. “Duma-Ruma: The Original Version of a Biblical Toponym and its Effect on Historical and Geographical Problems.” In Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift: Collected Papers in Jewish Studies, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, 2:615–20. Jerusalem: Academon Press, 1992. [In Hebrew.]
Elitsur, Yoel. “Rumah in Juda.” Israel Exploration Journal 44 (1994): 123–128.
Epstein, Abraham. “Biblische Textkritik bei den Rabbinen.” In Recueil des travaux rédigés en mémoire du Jubilé scientifique de Daniel Chwolson, edited by David Günzburg, 42–56. Berlin: Calvary, 1899.
Epstein, Abraham. “Ein von Titus nach Rom gebrachter Pentateuch-Codex und seine Varianten.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 34 (1885): 337–351.
Eshel, Esther “4QDeutn—A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing.” Hebrew Union College Annual 62 (1991): 117–154.
Finkelstein, Eliezer U., ed. The Commentary of David Kimchi on Isaiah. New York, NY: Columbia University, 1926.
Finsterbusch, Karin, Russell E. Fuller, and Armin Lange, eds. Between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18th edition. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.
Ginzberg, Louis. Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern und in der apokryphischen Litteratur. Berlin: Calvary, 1900.
Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897.
Ginzburg, Abraham, ed. The Commentary of R. David Qimhi to the Pentateuch, Perushe Radak li-Bereshit. Pressburg: Schmid, 1842. [In Hebrew.]
Govett, Robert. Isaiah Unfulfilled: Being an Exposition of the Prophet with New Version and Critical Notes. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1841.
Guggenheimer, Heinrich W. The Jerusalem Talmud: Second Order Mo‘ed; Tractates Ta‘aniot, Megillah, Hagigah and Mo‘ed Qatan (Mašqin). Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
Hasan-Rokem, Galit. “Rabbi Meir: The Illuminated and the Illuminating.” In Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, edited by Carol Bakhos, 227–244. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Mother of the Messiah in the Talmud Yerushalmi and Sefer Zerubbabel.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, edited by Peter Schäfer, 3: 369–390. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
Horbury, William. “Old Testament Interpretation in the Writings of the Church Fathers.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling, 727–787. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988.
Jastram, Nathan. “The Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah.” In The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to Masoretes, edited by Lorena Miralles-Maciá and Elvira Martín-Contreras, 137–145. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.
Kaiser, Otto. Der Prophet Jesaja: Kapitel 13–39. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
Kennicott, Benjamin. Vetus Testamentum hebraicum, cum variislectionibus. 2 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1776–1780.
Kutscher, Edward Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa). Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Lange, Armin. “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts.” In The Hebrew Bible, part 1a: Overview Articles, vol. 1 of Textual History of the Bible, edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, 112–166. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Lange, Armin. “4QXIIg (4Q82) as an Editorial Text.” Textus 26 (2016): 87–119.
Lange, Armin. “An Interpretative Reading in the Isaiah Scroll of Rabbi Meir.” In Hā-ʾîsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, edited by Binyamin Y. Goldstein, Michael Segal, and George J. Brooke, 210–222. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Lange, Armin. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, vol. 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Lange, Armin. “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature.” In In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures and its Reflections in Medieval Literature, edited by Philip S. Alexander, Armin Lange, and Renate Pillinger, 3–40. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Lange, Armin. “Rabbi Meir and the Severus Scroll.” In “Let the Wise Listen and Add to Their Learning” (Prov 1:5): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, edited by Constanza Cordoni and Gerhard Langer, 53–76. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016.
Lange, Armin. “Die Wurzel phz und ihre Konnotationen.” Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 497–510.
Lehnardt, Andreas. Ta‘aniyot Fasten: Übersetzt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E–IV Century C.E. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, 1962.
Loewinger, Samuel. “ספר תורה שהיה גנוז בבית כנסת סוירוס ברומא: יחסו אל מגילות ישעיהו במדבר יהודה ואל ‘תורתו של רבי מאיר’,” (“A Torah scroll that was stored in the Soveros synagogue in Rome: Its relation to the Isaiah scrolls from the Judean Desert and to ‘The Torah of Rabbi Meir’.”) Beth Mikra 15 (1970): 237–262. [In Hebrew.]
Loewinger, Samuel. “Prolegomenon.” In Viktor Apotwitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur, edited by Samuel Loewinger, vii–xlv. New York, NY: Ktav, 1970 (reprint of the edition of Vienna 1906).
Maier, Johann. “Israel und ‘Edom’ in den Ausdeutungen zu Dt 2,1–8.” In Studien zur jüdischen Bibel und ihrer Geschichte, 285–325. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.
Neubauer, Adolph. “The Introduction of the Square Characters in Biblical MSS., and an Account of the Earliest MSS. of the Old Testament.” In Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica: Essays Chiefly in Biblical and Patristic Criticism, edited by Samuel R. Driver, Thomas K. Cheyne, and William Sanday, 3: 1–36. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891.
Neusner, Jacob. The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation. Volume 18: Besah and Taanit. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Norton, Jonathan D. H. Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus, and the Yaḥad. London: Clark, 2011.
Oppenheimer, A’hron, and Stephen G. Wald. “Meir.” In volume 13 of Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2 nd edition, 776–777. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference, 2007.
Price, Randall. Searching for the Original Bible. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2007.
Segal, Moses H. “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953): 35–47.
Siegel, Jonathan P. The Severus Scroll and 1QIsaa. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple Court.” In Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies, 329–346. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraums, 2010.
Teeter, David A. Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. “Conflation as a Redactional Technique.” In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, 53–95. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Text of the Old Testament.” In The World of the Bible, ed. Adam S. van der Woude, 156–190. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3 rd edition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012.
Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
van Seters, John. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010.
Veltri, Giuseppe. Eine Tora für den König Talmai: Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinische Literatur. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.
White, Sidnie A. “The All Souls Deuteronomy and the Decalogue.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 193–206.
White Crawford, Sidnie A. “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period.” In Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Conception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, edited by Kristin de Troyer and Armin Lange, 127–140. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
White Crawford, Sidnie A. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
White Crawford, Sidnie A. “Samaritan Pentateuch.” In Textual History of the Bible, vol. 1, The Hebrew Bible, part 1a: Overview Articles, edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, 166–175. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja. Volume 2: Kapitel 13–27. 3rd edition. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003.
Yardeni, Ada. The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design. New edition, revised and expanded from the original Hebrew edition. London: British Library, 2002.
Cf. A. Lange, “Rabbi Meir and the Severus Scroll,” in “Let the Wise Listen and Add to Their Learning” (Prov 1:5): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, ed. C. Cordoni and G. Langer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 53–76; ibid. “An Interpretative Reading in the Isaiah Scroll of Rabbi Meir,” in Hā-ʾîsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, ed. B. Y. Goldstein, M. Segal, and G. J. Brooke (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 210–22.
Cf. A. Lange, “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts,” in Textual History of the Bible, vol. 1, The Hebrew Bible, part 1a: Overview Articles, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 127–31.
Cf. K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 109–41.
The below description of the harmonizing variants of 4QDeutn is guided by E. Eshel, “4QDeutn–A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing,” Hebrew Union College Annual 62 (1991): 117–54.
Cf., e.g., J. H. Tigay, “Conflation as a Redactional Technique,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 55–7; S. A. White, “The All Souls Deuteronomy and the Decalogue,” JBL 109 (1990): 200–1; ibid., “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Conception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. K. de Troyer and A. Lange (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005), 129–30; ibid., Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 31–2; Eshel, “4QDeutn,” 145–46; J. A. Duncan, “Excerpted Texts of Deuteronomy at Qumran,” RevQ 18 (1997–98): 55–56.
For the category of editorial texts, see A. Lange, “4QXIIg (4Q82) as an Editorial Text,” Textus 26 (2016): 87–119.
Cf. A. Lange, “Die Wurzel phz und ihre Konnotationen,” VT 51 (2001): 500–1.
For the Samaritan Pentateuch and the pre-Samaritan manuscripts of the Qumran library, see S. White Crawford, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” in Textual History of the Bible, vol. 1, The Hebrew Bible, part 1a: Overview Articles, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 166–75.
For variant literary editions, see the articles collected in K. Finsterbusch, R. E. Fuller, and A. Lange, eds., Between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020); and, especially, E. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (Leiden: Brill, 2010); and ibid., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2015). I have engaged in detail with the terminological debate about the term rewritten Bible in “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature, ed. P. S. Alexander, A. Lange, and R. Pillinger (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3–40, and would like to direct the attention of the reader to this article and the other contributions to this volume regarding the debate about the term “rewritten Bible.”
For interpretative readings in the Torah, see esp. D. A. Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).
For Rabbi Meir and his life, see N. Goldstein Cohen, “Rabbi Meir, a Descendant of Anatolian Proselytes,” JJS 23 (1972): 51–9; A. Oppenheimer and S. G. Wald, “Meir,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik, (2nd ed., Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference, 2007), 13: 776–77; G. Hasan-Rokem, “Rabbi Meir: The Illuminated and the Illuminating,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, ed. C. Bakhos; (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 227–44.
Cf. b. Er. 13a; b. Git. 67a; QohR 13a.
See N. Brüll, “R. Meir,” Jahrbücher für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 1 (1874): 235–36; A. Epstein, “Ein von Titus nach Rom gebrachter Pentateuch-Codex und seine Varianten,” MGWJ 34 (1885): 337–51; ibid., “Biblische Textkritik bei den Rabbinen,” in Recueil des travaux rédigés en mémoire du Jubilé scientifique de Daniel Chwolson, ed. D. Günzburg (Berlin: Calvary, 1899), 42–56; M. H. Segal, “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 72 (1953): 45–46; E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 87; S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E–IV Century C.E. (2nd ed.; New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, 1962), 24–25; S. Loewinger, “
Cf. Brüll, “R. Meir,” 235–36.
Cf. Epstein, “Titus,” 343; ibid., “Biblische Textkritik,” 48–9; Loewinger, “Prolegomenon”, xxxiii–xxxviii; ibid., “
Cf. Liebermann, Hellenism, 24; Segal, “Promulgation,” 45 (Gen 46:23 is a real variant); Siegel, Severus Scroll, 43 (the readings of Gen 1:31 and Isa 21:11 are such marginal annotations).
Cf. Loewinger, “Prolegomenon,” xxxiii–xxxviii; ibid., “
Cf. Segal, “Promulgation,” 45.
Liebermann, Hellenism, 25.
Ibid., 26.
Cf. Kutscher, Language, 87.
Siegel, Severus Scroll, 43, and 48.
Van Seters, Edited Bible, 110.
For this scroll and its textual character, see A. Lange, Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten vol. 1 of Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 346.
Cf. The Commentary of R. David Qimhi to the Pentateuch, Perushe Radak li-Bereshit, ed. A. Ginzburg (Pressburg: Schmid, 1842), 9b [in Hebrew].
Cf., e.g., Epstein, “Titus,” 346; Lieberman, “Hellenism,” 25; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012), 113; Arndt, “Zur Tora des Rabbi Meʾir,” 87.
Cf., e.g., Sh. Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple Court,” in Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraums, 2010), 330; E. Tov, “The Text of the Old Testament,” in The World of the Bible, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 159; P. D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 124; R. Price, Searching for the Original Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2007), 56; J. D. H. Norton, Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus, and the Yaḥad (London: Clark, 2011), 113; A. Lehnardt, Ta’aniyot Fasten: Übersetzt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 94, n. 11.
Cf., e.g. Segal, “Promulgation,” 45; Loewinger, “Prolegomenon”, xxxi; ibid., “
Cf. J. E. Burns, “The Synagogue of Severus: Commemorating the God of the Jews in Classical Rome,” Henoch 37 (2015): 102–7.
Cf. Lange, “Rabbi Meir and the Severus Scroll.”
For further variant lists in Rabbinic literature, see C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); G. Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai: Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinische Literatur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994).
In grammar, particularly in the study of conditional sentences, the terms protasis and apodosis refer to the two parts of a conditional statement. While the protasis sets up a condition, the apodosis describes the result of that condition being true.
Translation according to J. Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 18: 147–48.
1QIsaa refers to the first Isaiah scroll from Qumran cave 1. 4QIsab refers to the second Isaiah scroll from Qumran cave 4. MTL refers to Codex Leningradensis, Codex EPB I B of the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg. Manuscripts abbreviated as MTKenn and MTDeRossi refer to B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum hebraicum, cum variislectionibus (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1776–1780) and G. B. de Rossi, Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti (5 vols.; Parma: Regio, 1784–1788; repr. Amsterdam: Philo, 1969), respectively. LXX refers to the Old Greek translation of Isaiah. Aquila refers to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures by Aquila. Tg Neb refers to Targum Jonathan. V refers to Jerome’s Vulgate translation of the Jewish Bible. P refers to the Old Syriac translation called Peshitta.
See, e.g., W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (18th ed., Heidelberg: Springer, 2013), 245.
See, e.g., O. Kaiser, Der Prophet Jesaja: Kapitel 13–39 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 106.
See, e.g., H. Wildberger, Jesaja, vol. 2, Kapitel 13–27 (3rd ed., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 787; B. S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001). 153.
See, e.g., F. Avemarie, “Esaus Hände, Jakobs Stimme: Edom als Sinnbild Roms in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur,” in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden, ed. R. Feldmeier and U. Heckel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 182; M. Himmelfarb, “The Mother of the Messiah in the Talmud Yerushalmi and Sefer Zerubbabel,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. P Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 3: 381; J. Maier, “Israel und ‘Edom’ in den Ausdeutungen zu Dt 2,1–8,” in Studien zur jüdischen Bibel und ihrer Geschichte (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 292.
But see G. B. de Rossi, Scholia critica in V. T. libros seu supplementa ad varias sacri textus lectiones (Parma: Ex regio typographeo, 1793), 50: “Ad hunc eundem Meirii codicem eaque vetustiorum rabbinorum verba alludere videtur Hieronymus, qui lib. V in Isaiam refert quosdam Hebraeorum pro Dumà legisse Roma, hancque prophetiam ad regnum Romanum applicasse.” See further Brüll, “R. Meir,” 236; Epstein, “Titus,” 343; Epstein, “Biblische Textkritik,” 48; A. Neubauer, “The Introduction of the Square Characters in Biblical MSS., and an Account of the Earliest MSS. of the Old Testament,” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica: Essays Chiefly in Biblical and Patristic Criticism, ed. S. R. Driver, T. K. Cheyne, and W. Sanday (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891), 3: 22; L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern und in der apokryphischen Litteratur (Berlin: Calvary, 1900), 299.
“Hoc juxta historiam dictum sit: caeterum propter similitudinem litterae, et ex eo quod RES et DALETH, non multum inter se discrepent, quidam Hebraeorum pro Duma, Romam legunt, volentes prophetiam contra regnum Romanum dirigi, frivola persuasione, qua semper in Idumaeae nomine Romanos existimant demonstrari: Duma autem interpretatur silentium.” For stylizing my rather literal translation into proper English, I am obliged to my good friend and colleague Zlatko Pleše.
“Judaei frustra somniant contra urbem Romam, regnumque Romanum hanc fieri prophetiam; et illud quod in Isaia scriptum est, Onus Duma, paululum litterae apice commutato pro DELETH legi posse RES, et sonare Romam: VAU quippe littera et pro u, et pro o, eorum lingua accipitur.” Translation according to W. Horbury, “Old Testament Interpretation in the Writings of the Church Fathers,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 774.
Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja, 787.
For a brief description of the codex, see de Rossi, Variae lectiones, 1.cvii.
Thus seems to be the implication of R. Govett, Isaiah Unfulfilled: Being an Exposition of the Prophet with New Version and Critical Notes (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1841), 211.
De Rossi, Scholia critica, 50.
See de Rossi, Variae lectiones, 4.xxxii. I have not been able to verify this reading in Finkelstein’s edition of Kimchi’s commentary (E. U. Finkelstein, ed., The Commentary of David Kimchi on Isaiah [New York, NY: Columbia University, 1926], 1:121). It is possible that the
The edition was published in Pesaro by a member of the Soncino family and publishing house. See de Rossi, Variae lectiones, 1.cxlviii; C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897), 886–9.
Contra Kutscher, Language, 87, n. 3 (midrashic exegesis); Siegel, Severus Scroll, 45–46; G. D. Cohen who regards it as a “piquant play on words” by Rabbi Meir (“Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Jewish Thought,” in Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures [Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1991], 245); and H. W. Guggenheimer who understands it as an interpretative variant (The Jerusalem Talmud: Second Order Mo’ed; Tractates Ta’aniot, Megillah, Hagigah and Mo’ed Qatan (Mašqin) [Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015], 16, n. 84).
Thus Loewinger, “Prolegomenon,” xxxii; ibid., “
The BHS transcribes MTL here erroneously as
See the discussion in Y. Elitsur, “Duma-Ruma: The Original Version of a Biblical Toponym and its Effect on Historical and Geographical Problems,” in Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift: Collected Papers in Jewish Studies, ed. M. Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Academon Press, 1992), 2: 615–620 [in Hebrew]; cf. ibid., “Rumah in Juda,” Israel Exploration Journal 44 (1994): 123–6.
A. Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design (London: British Library, 2002), 183.