Textual History of Old Testament

This dissertation comprises a translation technical study of the Septuagint version of the book of Jeremiah (Jer LXX) conducted for the purpose of characterizing the translation. The last two centuries of scholarship on Jer LXX have produced diverse descriptions of the translator’s product, ability and approach to translation, ranging from a free and arbitrary translation to a literal and faithful one. Though modern scholars mostly agree that the translation attempts to follow its Hebrew Vorlage very closely, it contains several indicators of free and less formal equivalence. In addition, discrepancy between certain renderings within chapters 1–28 (Jer a’) and chapters 29–52 (Jer b’) have borne debate regarding the unity of the translation, particularly whether these differences reflect the work of multiple translators, a later revision, or the peculiarities of a single translator.

A translation technical study has the potential to account for the different factors within Jer LXX in a way that previous studies on the character of the translation have been unable to do. Earlier research, though pivotal and pertinent in its own ways, relies on a minimal analysis of the syntactical and semantic contexts in which the Hebrew words and their Greek equivalents occur. A closer look at these contexts by means of a translation technical analysis allows a more precise determination of the character of the translation and its place in the history of the Septuagint, pertaining in particular to the relation between the Greek and Hebrew texts of Jer and to the cause of the differences between Jer a’ and Jer b’.

The study of translation technique constitutes a comparison between Hebrew words and expressions and their counterparts in the Greek translation, and it is the primary means by which to identify the different factors that influenced the product of translation. Three factors, and the extent of their influence, need to be taken into account when evaluating a translation in the LXX: the syntax and grammar of the Hebrew Vorlage, the requirements of the Greek language, and the individual translator’s own peculiarities. This type of analysis provides answers to questions regarding the nature of Jer LXX as a textual witness to the Hebrew text, the development of the Greek text of Jer LXX, and the translation character of Jer LXX.

The method is applied to the renderings of Hebrew words and expressions for which a difference between Jer a’ and Jer b’ has been identified. This choice of material has been made in order that the issue regarding the bisectioning of Jer LXX can be addressed to the fullest possible extent by this study. Since the question of a revision in Jer LXX revolves around the translation differences between Jer a’ and Jer b’, the character of these differences will be further delineated in relation to the revisional character of the kaige tradition, an exemplar of early jewish revision that is universally accepted as such. This comparison allows a further differentiation of the characteristics among the differences that can be categorised as revisional in nature and those that cannot, which in turn enables a more precise placement of Jer LXX within the history and development of the LXX as a whole.

The conclusions of this study draw from the distinction of the different types of changes that occur between Jer a’ and Jer b’. Certain differences between the two do reflect the revisional characteristics of the kaige tradition, which suggests that they were produced by a reviser who was invested in a revisionary tradition similar to kaige. This correlates with earlier suggestions that Jer b’ contains a revision. A number of the differences, however, indicate that the character of the revision is not as developed in its system and consistency as are the later exemplars of the kaige tradition. This distinguishes the revision in Jer b’ from other known revisions and allows its placement as prior to the later kaige revisers. Third, certain differences constitute a change toward more natural Greek expression, which is the opposite of what one would expect from a revision since Greek idiom usually does not reflect the formal characteristics of Hebrew. These differences are to be understood as reflecting a change towards more intuitive use of the Greek language by the first translator of Jer.

This third conclusion provides a window into understanding the motive of the revision. The need for revisions came from a perceived disparity between the Septuagint translation and the Hebrew text used by the reviser. The latter half of the translation of Jer LXX evinces a number of changes toward less formal equivalents of the Hebrew text, which was unappealing to the reviser. This, together with the possibility of later growth in the reviser’s Hebrew text after the initial translation into Greek, combine to form conducive conditions for revision.

Biblical archaeology has made tremendous contributions to biblical scholarship. It has helped us in the understanding of the Bible message, in the reconstruction of biblical history, in fixing the chronology of biblical events, and in recovering biblical places. The focus of this article is an examination of archaeological discoveries in Shiloh and its relation to biblical studies. The article seeks to answer the following questions: What does the Bible actually say about Shiloh? What are the results of the archaeological excavations in Shiloh? How have they contributed to biblical scholarship? Furthermore, I will provide a reconstruction of Shiloh’s history, highlight the role of Shiloh in history, fix exodus’ date and determine whether Shiloh was God’s elected residence in this article. The method that is adopted in this article is a descriptive-historical method. The focus of the description will be on the results of the excavations of Shiloh from 1922 to 2008.
Biblical Shiloh is one important city in Ancient Palestine that has been recovered. It was both an administrative and a religious center for the Israelite tribes from Joshua’s time until the loss of the ark around 1050 B.C. It has been excavated many times in the past. It is presently identified with Khirbet Seilun in the Middle East. Through the excavations of biblical Shiloh, many material remains from the Early Bronze Age (3150-2200 B.C.) to the Byzantine church period (A.D. 380-420).
Consequent various excavations carried out in Shiloh, some issues are raised. These issues are very significant to biblical studies. These issues are presented in question forms as follows: 
• Was Shiloh occupied before the Israelite settlement in Iron 1 Age Period (1200-900 B.C.)?
• Were the Israelites the first to build extensively at Shiloh?
• Was there any Temple at Shiloh in the Iron I Age period (1200-900 B.C.)?
• After the loss of the ark, was Shiloh destroyed by the Philistines? Did it gradually come into ruin after the loss of the ark?
The answers to these questions are as follows:
• Shiloh was first occupied but was already abandoned when the Israelites arrived there around 1200 B.C. after the conquest.
• The Israelites were not the first to build extensively at Shiloh. There were buildings and strong walls in Shiloh by the Middle Age IIC (1650-1550 B.C.).
• Shiloh was known as a place for cultic activities. In Shiloh, there had been the presence of Temple since the Middle Bronze II Age (1750-1550 B.C.).
• After the Philistines captured the ark and the defeating of Israelites at their hand, they pressed on up to the hills and burnt Shiloh to ashes.
Archaeological excavations of Shiloh have made tremendous contributions to biblical scholarship. It has helped to reconstruct the history of Shiloh. It has helped to establish the role of biblical Shiloh in history. It has helped to fix the Israelite exodus’ and conquest’s date. It has helped to establish that Jerusalem is the elected God’s residence and not Shiloh.

The Hebrew Bible not only serves as a foundational document of Christianity and Judaism, but also forms part of the historical sources that shed light on the ancient Israelite society and the politics, economics, cultures and traditions of the ancient Near East. Due to various historical-political and religious influences, the textual study of the Hebrew Bible has long been limited to the Hebrew Masoretic Text preserved by the medieval Jewish scribes. Without denying the historical value of the Masoretic Text, this paper stresses the significance of the Septuagint in understanding the textual history of the Hebrew Bible. At the same time, this paper utilizes the Dead Sea Scrolls and advanced literary theories to explain the variants between the Masoretic and the Septuagint, and thus illustrates the dynamics and fluidity in the early formation of the biblical texts. The study on the Masoretic Text and Septuagint will not only deepen the knowledge on the sources available for the reconstruction of the textual history of the Hebrew Bible, but also enhance the understanding of the historical development of the ancient Jewish civilization.

entitled, "Lucian redivivus: Some Reflections on Barthélemy's Les Devanciers d'Aquila." 5 Since then, there has been considerable work done on the Antiochian text, including a critical edition of the Antiochian text for the books of Reigns. 6 Based on some recent literature, there is a divided appreciation for the Antiochian text as a witness to the OG translation. R. Timothy McLay, for instance, defends his reliance upon Vaticanus against Anneli Aejmelaeus when he writes, "Her claim must rest on the presupposition that B and its congeners are not the primary witnesses to the OG in Reigns. If not, then what are? What would one use to reconstruct the OG in the Kaige sections?" 7 Siegfried Kreuzer, on the other hand, argues that the "Lucianic text contains a large portion of old text, a text that goes back to early Jewish times and which is-as for example, Barthélemy stated-close to the OG. Therefore, it is appropriate to talk in a more neutral way about the Antiochene text." 8 As a mediating position, Law and Kauhanen note, "There is no doubt that B offers numerous OG readings in non-καίγε sections and L in καίγε, but generalizations and vague claims are unhelpful in the study of the textual history." 9 5. Unfortunately, I have not been able to consult either of these works for this essay.

Textual evidence from the Second Temple Period attests a principle by which Hebrew manuscripts were edited in light of other scriptural texts (e.g. 1QIsa a ). Such inner-scriptural editing was often undertaken along lines of connection perceived between the texts before the expansion took place, so that these perceived connections served as a guide for the scribe's own work. Th is study argues that the same textual procedure was at work in creating the longer text of MT Ezekiel, which is 4-5% longer than LXX Ezekiel. In light of the work of E. Ulrich, this study concludes with reflections on what MT Ezekiel contributes, as an empirical example, to the discussion about the relationship between text and canon.

Der Tempelweihspruch (I Reg 8,12–13) ist in einer längeren
Version in der LXX (III Bas 8,53) überliefert. Wie verhalten sich die beiden
Fassungen zueinander? Dieser Artikel argumentiert dafür, dass sowohl der MT
als auch die LXX auf eine gemeinsame fehlerhafte Quelle zurückgehen, die der
Herausgeber des MT dahingehend korrigierte, dass er Sätze des ursprünglichen
Spruches wegließ, während der Übersetzer der LXX den Spruch möglichst wörtlich
zu übersetzen versuchte. Dies wirft auch ein Licht auf die rätselhafte Aussage
über die Sonne, die nach dieser Hypothese wie folgt gelautet haben dürfte: שֶמֶשׁ הוֹדִיעַ לָשֶבֶת בַשָמַיִם

The temple dedication poem (1 Kgs 8,12–13) has a longer version in the
LXX (III Bas 8,53) than the MT. How do the two versions relate to each other? This article argues that both the MT and the LXX go back to a common source containing scribal errors. The editor of the MT omitted several sentences from this source, while the LXX made an attempt to translate the source text literally. This hypothesis sheds light on the enigmatic statement about the sun, which might have looked like this in its original form: שֶמֶשׁ הוֹדִיעַ לָשֶבֶת בַשָמַיִם

The Samaritan text of Gen 8:22 and Exod 15:18 is vocalized in a way different from the MT: In Gen 8:22 the Samaritan text reads "'ad kol yeme ha-aretz", instead of MT "'od...", in Exod 15:18 the Samaritan text reads "'olam wa-'od", instead of MT "...wa-'ed". Both readings point to the existence of an eschatological concept in early Samaritan thinking, which expected a new world to come after the end of the present.

The Hebrew Bible is a product of ancient editing, but to what degree can this editing be uncovered? “Uncovering Ancient Editing” argues that divergent textual witnesses of the same text, so-called documented evidence, should be the starting point for such an endeavor.

The book presents a fresh analysis of Josh 24 and related texts as a test case for refining our knowledge of how scribes edited texts. Josh 24 is envisioned as a gradually growing Persian period text, whose editorial history can be reconstructed with the help of documented evidence preserved in the MT, LXX, and other ancient sources.

This study has major implications for both the study of the book of Joshua and text-historical methodology in general.

The purpose of this study is to utilize advanced digital tools for material reconstruction of fragmentary scriptural scrolls from Qumran, as a means to classify them according to the textual traditions of the biblical text. The method proposed in the study will be demonstrated by means of the reconstruction of 4QpaleoGen-Exl.

This volume is part of a series of English translations of the Syriac Peshitta along with the Syriac text carried out by an international team of scholars. Gillian Greenberg and Donald Walter have translated thetext, while Kiraz has prepared the Syriac text in the west Syriac script, fully vocalized and pointed. The translation and the Syriac text are presented on facing pages so that both can be studied together. All readers are catered for: those wanting to read the text in English, those wanting to improve their grasp of Syriac by reading the original language along with a translation, and those wanting to focus on a fully vocalized Syriac text. I provided the collations for this project.