Part of 5 Samuel–Kings - 5.3 Ancient Hebrew TextsThe discovery of 4QSama,b,c (4Q51–53) revolutionized the textual history of the Bible and continues to fascinate scholars because many of their features remain enigmatic.1 This is especially the case for 4QSama, which attests to the largest portions of the text.2 On the one hand, the strong similarities of these texts to Old Greek (5.4) prove that the Greek version is a careful translation of its Hebrew Vorlage, which attests a different text type from proto-mt (5.3.2). This fact is borne out by their agreements with the Old Latin (vl; 3–5.2…

Part of 3–5 Former ProphetsThe Masoretes considered the prophetic books that we divide into Former and Latter Prophets as one unit, the second division of the Bible. In the Masoretic notes they referred to them as בנביאים “in the Prophets.” Following that view, both Former and Latter Prophets are dealt with together in this entry.3–5.3.1 Original Form, Editions, and Tools1Three of the four manuscripts that comprise the “medieval Masoretic text” in total or in part contain the Prophets. The Leningrad Codex (mtl; Codex epb i b 19a of the National Library of Russia in St. Petersbu…

Part of 5 Samuel–Kings 5.3.1 Ancient and Late Ancient Manuscript Evidence 5.3.2 Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to mt 5.3.3 Other Texts

5.1 Textual History of Samuel 5.2 Textual History of Kings 5.3 Ancient Hebrew Texts  5.3.1 Ancient and Late Ancient Manuscript Evidence  5.3.2 Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to mt  5.3.3 Other Texts 5.4 Septuagint (Samuel) 5.5 Septuagint (Kings)

Part of 3–5 Former Prophets - 3–5.2 Secondary Translations - 3–5.2.1 Vetus LatinaThe Old Latin version (vl) of Samuel–Kings is extremely important for establishing the Old Greek text (5.4; 5.5) and ultimately its Hebrew Vorlage due to the reasonably literal character of the translation. Despite its fragmentary condition and the fact that many of its witnesses are of a secondary nature (marginal notes in Vulgate manuscripts [3–5.1.7], patristic quotations [21.8; 1.7.2]), it constitutes a touchstone without which the textual histo…

Authors vol. 1R. Althann: 11.1 Dalia Amara: 18.3.1 H. Ausloos: 4.1 Veronika Bachmann: 13.2.2; 17.2.2; 13-17.2.3.5 Claudio Balzaretti: 13-17.1.4.4; 13-17.2.4.4; 19.3.3; 19.4.4 Nathalie Bosson: 6-9.2.2.2 Anne Boud'hors: 21.10 Christian Brady: 13-17.1.3 Jeremy Brown: 6-9.2.3.4 Alessandro Maria Bruni: 1.4.8; 1.4.10; 2.5.7; 3-5.2.6; 3-5.2.7; 6-9.2.6; 6-9.2.7; 10.4.7; 11.4.6; 11.4.7; 12.4.6; 12.4.7; 13-17.2.6; 13-17.2.7; 18.4.6; 18.4.7; 19.4.6; 19.4.7; 20.4.6; 20.4.7 José Manuel Cañas Reíllo: 10.4.1; 12.4.1; 13-17.2.1.2; 13-17.2.1.3; 13-17.2.1.4; 18.4.1; 20.4.1 Ignac…

Part of 13–17 Five Scrolls - 13–17.1 Primary Translations - 13–17.1.5 Hexapla13–17.1.5.3.1 BackgroundThe Greek translation of Qohelet incorporated into the body of texts loosely termed “Septuagint” is characterised by extreme formal equivalence (13–17.1.1.3). It is debated, in fact, as to whether or not the translator was Aquila.1 As one might presume, scholiasts who selected readings in variation from lxx supplied not only a fair number from Symmachus, whose renderings are more oriented to the demands of the target language, but also a number attribut…

Part of 6–9 Latter Prophets - 6–9.2 Secondary Translations - 6–9.2.5 Armenian TranslationsThe Armenian version of Ezekiel has not been the subject of detailed investigation. For this entry, Arm-Ezek has been collated according to the Zohrapean edition of 1805;1 the Greek employed is Ziegler’s critical edition. 6–9.2.5.3.1 NatureThat the version derives from a Greek matrix is corroborated by a number of compound terms that serve as the prototype for an Armenian coinage, such as the epithet μεγαλοπτέρυγος “large-winged” at Ezek 17:3 and its equivalent մեծաթեւ. Variations in trans…

Part of 5 Samuel–Kings 5.1.1 Extant WitnessesThe oldest manuscripts of the book of Samuel derive from the second half of the Second Temple period: 4QSamb (5.3.1.3), the oldest Hebrew manuscript, is dated paleographically to approximately 250 b.c.e.,1 4QSamc (5.3.1.4) to approximately 100–75 b.c.e.,2 and 4QSama (5.3.1.2) to approximately 50–25 b.c.e.3 No date was assigned to 1QSam (5.3.1.1) in the official publication,4 but it is inscribed in a Hasmonean script from approximately the first half of the first century b.c.e. Manuscripts of the received mt (5.3.2) date from the…

Part of 1 Overview Articles - 1.1 Introduction - 1.1.1 Textual History of the Hebrew BibleUntil approximately 250 b.c.e., there was no preserved written evidence of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures. The nature of the text was described in increasingly nuanced ways by the ancients and by the nineteenth- and twentieth-century literary, source, and redaction critics. The ancients, with little evidence, thought the books, in a form assumed to be close to a purified mt, were authored by the individuals whose names were attached to the books: Moses and the prophets. With t…

Part of 2 Baruch/Jeremiah - 2.5 Jeremiah’s Prophecy to Pashur 2.5.3.1 Nature and SignificanceThe Coptic version of the short pseudepigraphon known as Jeremiah’s Prophecy to Pashur (Coptic ⲡⲁⲥⲭⲱⲣ) is exclusively preserved as a pericope in the Coptic Holy Week lectionary. This liturgical book contains biblical readings for each canonical hour of the Holy Week days.1 A colophon appended to some Bohairic manuscripts of the Holy Week lectionary mentions that the book was compiled by Gabriel ibn Turaik (1131–1146 C.E.), the seventieth patriarch of Alexandria, and was revised a…

Part of 20 1–2 Chronicles - 20.3 Primary Translations 20.3.5.1 BackgroundThe Greek text of 1 and 2 Supplements (20.3.1; Chronicles in the Hebrew tradition) was translated from a Hebrew text relatively close to what is now known as mt (20.2.2). Furthermore, the translator used a literal translation technique, which offers a quantitative rendering of both the syntactical and morphological structure of the Hebrew text.1 This fact probably accounts for the paucity of Hexaplaric materials for 1 and 2 Supplements. Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that th…

Concept and History Manuscript finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Cairo Genizah manuscripts, the discoveries at Nag Hammadi, and many more have radically changed our knowledge of the textual history of the Jewish and Christian Bibles. These new insights have led to several noticeable paradigm shifts in the field of textual criticism. Textual witnesses are no longer regarded as quarries for textual variants but are studied as texts and traditions in their own right. For instance, the study of t…

Part of 5 Samuel–Kings - 5.3 Ancient Hebrew TextsThere is no surviving witness of a complete (proto-)Masoretic text of Samuel–Kings earlier than the first vocalized masoretic manuscripts (Codex Cairo, 895 c.e.; Aleppo Codex, ca. 915 c.e.; and Codex Leningradensis or Firkovitch b19a, 1008 c.e.). Only some small fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls are to be assessed as close to mt or as “semi-masoretic” (5.3.1): 1QSam (1Q7)1 and 4QKgs (4Q54).2 The fragments of 5QKgs (5Q2) are too small and too poorly preserved to allow for a characterization with any certainty.3In addition to the …

Part of 13–17 Five Scrolls - 13–17.2 Secondary Translations - 13–17.2.5 Armenian Translations13–17.2.5.3.1 Background: EditionsThe Armenian text used for this entry is that of Zohrapian, in his diplomatic edition of 1805;1 the Greek was collated according to Rahlfs’ provisional edition.213–17.2.5.3.2 Translation CharacterAs in a number of books, a division into two strata – a translation at the beginning of the fifth century c.e. (Arm 1), and a revision that ensued about a generation later (Arm 2) – has been identified in Ecclesiastes. Arm-Qoh’s dependenc…

Part of 3–5 Former Prophets - 3–5.2 Secondary Translations - 3–5.2.5 Armenian Translations 3–5.2.5.3.1 Background: EditionsThe Armenian version of these books was translated from Greek (5.4). In this entry, references to the source text are made according to their lxx designation, that is, “1–2 Kingdoms.” The Greek text employed is the Cambridge Septuagint,1 together with that of Rahlfs’ provisional edition.2 The Armenian text used is that of Zohrapian’s diplomatic edition of 1805,3 supplemented with sample collations of manuscript readings. 3–5.2.5.3.2 Translation Charac…

Part of 19 Ezra–Nehemiah - 19.4 Secondary Translations 19.4.5.1 BackgroundAlthough Ezra–Nehemiah were originally one, and have remained so in the Greek tradition, in the composite text of 2 Esdras from which the Armenian version derives, the latter, as witnessed in our extant biblical manuscripts, has been divided in transmission into the units of Second Ezra and Nehemiah. Granted its Greek origins, the Armenian lacks the following sections of the Hebrew of Nehemiah (Neh 3:37–38; 11:12–35; 12:2–9, 25, 29…

Part of 12 Proverbs - 12.3 Primary Translations 12.3.5.1 BackgroundThe text of lxx-Prov (12.3.1) has pluses and minuses vis-à-vis mt (12.2.2) and from Proverbs 24 to the end of the book the materials are arranged differently.1 This textual situation allows for the work of the revisers to be seen clearly, since they revised the Greek text by bringing it into greater alignment with the Hebrew in many places. 12.3.5.2 Sources, Editions, and Auxiliary ToolsThe readings of the Hexaplaric fragments of Proverbs are found in the following manuscripts used by Montfaucon2 and subsequently by …

Part of 19 Ezra–Nehemiah - 19.4 Secondary Translations19.4.6.1 BackgroundThe Georgian translations of 2 Ezra 1–10 (= Georg-Ezra) and 2 Ezra 11–23 (= Georg-Neh) came down to us in codices Georgo (= Mount Athos, Library of the Iviron Monastery, geo. 1, 978 c.e., in two volumes), Georg j2 (= Jerusalem, Library of the Greek Patriarchate, geo. 11, eleventh century), Georgd (Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts h-855, seventeenth century), Georgf (= Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts a-646, sixteenth century), Georgi (= Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts a-570, fiftee…

Part of 2 Pentateuch - 2.2 Ancient Hebrew Texts - 2.2.5 Other Sources 2.2.5.3.1 History of Research, Manuscripts, and EditionsTwo tiny silver scrolls (Ketef Hinnom i [kh i] and Ketef Hinnom ii [kh ii]) were discovered in the 1979 excavations conducted by Gabriel Barkay southwest of the Old City of Jerusalem, on the western shoulder of the Hinnom Valley. He first published the scrolls in 1989.1 Because of their small size and deteriorated condition, it was extremely difficult to read them with confidence. As a later article put it, “The text could not be r…