Textual History of Old Testament

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.

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.

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.

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.

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