Method in Unit Delimitation (Pericope 6)

Method in Unit Delimitation Pericope Scripture as Written and Read in Antiquity Editorial Board Raymond de Hoop (Jay...

Author: Marjo C. A. Korpel | Josef M. Oesch | Stanley E. Porter

103 downloads 1550 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Method in Unit Delimitation

Pericope Scripture as Written and Read in Antiquity

Editorial Board Raymond de Hoop (Jayapura-Abe, Indonesia), Bart D. Ehrman (Chapel Hill, NC), Peter W. Flint (Langley, BC), Arie van der Kooij (Leiden), Marjo C.A. Korpel (Utrecht), Josef M. Oesch (Innsbruck), John W. Olley (Perth), John N. Oswalt (Jackson, MS), Wido Th. van Peursen (Leiden), Stanley E. Porter (Hamilton, ON), Gert T.M. Prinsloo (Pretoria), Emanuel Tov (Jerusalem)

Executive Editor

Marjo C.A. Korpel Associate Editor

Paul Sanders

Volume 6

Method in Unit Delimitation Edited by

Marjo C.A. Korpel Josef M. Oesch Stanley E. Porter

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 1568-3443 ISBN 978 90 04 16567 0 © Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

Contents M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch, S.E. Porter, Preface J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel, Paragraphing in a TiberoPalestinian Manuscript of the Prophets and Writings

vii

1

K. De Troyer, The Leviticus and Joshua Codex from the Schøyen Collection: A Closer Look at the Text Divisions

35

S.E. Porter, The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation on Reading and Use of Greek Manuscripts

44

E.J. Revell, The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

61

S. Tatu, Graphic Devices Used by the Editors of Ancient and Mediaeval Manuscripts to Mark Verse-Lines in Classical Hebrew Poetry

92

J. van Banning S.J., Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton

141

W.G.E. Watson, Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament: An Appraisal

162

R. de Hoop, Diverging Traditions: Jeremiah 27–29 (˜, Í, ◊) / 34–36 (Ì): A Proposal for a New Text Edition 185 Abbreviations

216

Index of Authors

217

Index of Biblical Texts

221

Preface Since 1999, the Pericope Group of scholars, interested in the way texts were subdivided in antiquity, has met regularly to discuss new ﬁndings and projects (see www.pericope.net). The papers from these regular discussions are published in the Pericope series, formerly published by Van Gorcum, Assen, but since 2007 by Brill, Leiden. In this volume selected papers from the meetings in Goningen (2004), Edinburgh (2006) and Vienna (2007) have been combined into a thematic volume, dealing with the method of unit delimitation. Although this subject has been discussed on previous occasions, a relatively young and emerging approach like delimitation criticism requires constant evaluation of methodological issues. De Moor and Korpel describe a hitherto unnoticed Tibero-Palestinian manuscript from Paris, showing that in many cases its paragraphing deviates from the Leningrad Codex, but is often supported by other Masoretic and Pre-Masoretic witnesses. Kristin de Troyer investigates the text divisions in the Leviticus and Joshua Codices from the Schøyen collection and concludes that these ancient texts do not contain any text division. Stanley Porter studies a ﬁfth-century lectionary, showing that at that time the lectionary units had not yet been ﬁrmly established, even if they were in use in various forms in early churches. Other topics discussed are the graphic devices used by the editors of ancient and medieval manuscripts (Silviu Tatu), and the chapter divisions of Stephan Langton on which the chapter divisions in modern Bibles are based (Joop van Banning). Wilfred Watson oﬀers a succinct appraisal of work hitherto done on unit delimitation in the Old Testament. The volume closes with a proposal for a new polyglot Bible, containing data with regard to unit delimitation from four traditions: Hebrew, Greek, Syriac and Latin. The proposal was presented by Raymond de Hoop at the Vienna meeting in the summer of 2007. Readers are invited to react to this proposal in order to establish its viability. The Editors: Marjo C.A. Korpel, Josef M. Oesch and Stanley E. Porter

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript of the Prophets and Writings Johannes C. de Moor & Marjo C.A. Korpel ’t Harde / Utrecht – The Netherlands

1 Introduction In earlier meetings of the Pericope group several participants have urged for a more systematic concentration of research on one particular manuscript because they felt that paragraphing was an impressionistic aﬀair, not strictly controlled by an authoritative tradition. Of course these colleagues admitted that the rabbis aimed at such uniformity since at least the third century bce,1 but since it has been demonstrated that they were only partly successful in suppressing the relative freedom with regard to paragraphing which the pre-Masoretic scribes of the scrolls of the Judean Desert seemed to have enjoyed, paragraphing was assumed to be one area in which to some (undeﬁned) extent the scribes of biblical manuscripts were tacitly allowed to follow their own subjective judgment, even though the Halakhah forbade this (see e.g. Tov 1998; 2000; 2004). It is perhaps appropriate to emphasise once again that in the ancient world scribes were never simple copyists. From the earliest times on they were scholars, an intellectual elite in a largely illiterate world. Their products were intended to inﬂuence the public opinion and to propagate new ideas in times when established political and religious intstitutions seemed to become inadequate. In the modern world they would be regarded as writers, be it plagiarists, because they often used material that was not their own, but modiﬁed existing written traditions.2 Even when canonisation or oﬃcial recognition of a certain text recension had taken place, scribes were tacitly granted the freedom to introduce minor changes reﬂecting their own understanding of the text.3 1

The data have been surveyed by Oesch 1979; 2003. See e.g. Hallo 1962; 1996, 144-53; Tertel 1994; Korpel 1998; Van der Toorn 2007, 27-49. 3 See e.g. Tigay 1982; Lieberman 1990; Tov 2004, 26-9. 2

2

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

As one of us has shown, this is also true of unit delimitation in cultic texts from Babylonia, Ugarit and ancient Israel (Korpel 2005). It is evident that the scribes felt the necessity to elucidate the logical structure of the cultic texts they were copying by inserting dots, lines and spaces. Yet they often failed to achieve perfection in placing markers of logical units. This lack of consistency appears to be typical of all ancient attempts at dividing texts according to some logical principle. The intended structural division may have been lucid enough, but the simple fact is that many people ﬁnd it extremely diﬃcult to maintain order. If a scribe knew a text well he may have felt little inclination to mark what was obvious to him as an expert reader.4

However, since it stands to reason that the earliest Scripture scrolls already indicated some kind of section division,5 be it perhaps inconsistently, it is a legitimate aim to try to reach back to the earliest attainable stage of the transmission of the text with regard to unit division, as is the commonly accepted custom with regard to the text itself in textual criticism. It is important then to establish whether common traditions may be at the root of diﬀerences in paragraphing in non-Ben Asher biblical manuscripts. It is with this aim that we want to present a study of a single interesting manuscript here.

2 The Manuscript B.N. h´ebreu 80 In his catalogue of Hebrew and Samaritan manuscripts in the National Library of France, Hermann Zotenberg gave a very summary description of the manuscript No. 80, formerly Sorbonne 254 (henceforth in this article: BN), Les livres de Josu´e, des Juges, de Samuel, des Rois, les Proph`etes et les Hagiographes. V´elin. Pet. XIIe si`ecle. – (Sorbonne 254).6

4

Korpel 2005, 157. Oesch 1979, 343, 364; Tov 2004, 155-6. 6 Zotenberg 1866, 8. 5

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

3

Fig. 1: Ezra 1:1-2:2a in BN.

Zotenberg did not remark on its peculiar layout and vocalisation. Although provided with Tiberian vowels and accents,7 the vocalisation deviates in countless cases from the standard that was set by the Ben Asher family in the 9th and 10th centuries. As we shall 7

The latter are sometimes omitted entirely, e.g. in Chronicles.

4

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

see, these deviations partly agree with what we ﬁnd in so-called Ben Naftali manuscripts.8 Occasionally also the accents diﬀer from the Tiberian tradition. The layout is not in accordance with the Tiberian custom of writing the text in several columns per page, but is executed in one wide column per page, as is the case in the scrolls from the Judean Desert and in many Palestinian and Babylonian manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza. According to John Revell this type of layout is typical of his group V, manuscripts that preserve the Palestinian pronunciation while making use of the Tiberian vowel signs and accents (Revell 1978, 162). Masoretic notes are lacking entirely in BN. Here, we show a representative page from BN (Fig. 1, preceding page). BN contains many inaccuracies and errors, again a characteristic it shares with Palestinian manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza which were partly written before the rigorous control of the Tiberian Masoretes prevailed. We will discuss a few of these errors below. The manuscript has not been provided with a colophon, so we know neither the scribe nor a reliable date of its completion.9 This is probably the reason why the manuscript is not included in the admirable description of dated French manuscripts in Hebrew characters by Malachi Bet-Aryeh, Colette Sirat, Arlette Attali and others (Beit-Ari´e et al. 1972-1986). The semi-cursive script points to an origin in northern Italy or southern France. It is unclear how Zotenberg arrived at his dating in the 12th century. If it was on the basis of palaeography we must confess to a certain scepticism. It is notoriously diﬃcult to establish a date on the basis of palaeography alone. As a matter of fact, the script of another Paris manuscript (B.N. h´ebreu 1227) resembles that of BN, but this Italian manuscript is dated 1354.10 One might be inclined to dismiss such a manuscript as a ‘study codex’, without any real value for the study of the development 8

On this class of manuscripts see e.g. Kahle 1930, 45*-68*; Blank 1931-1932; Yalon 1955; P´erez Castro 1955; D´ıez Macho 1956; 1963; 1970; 1971; Prijs 1957; Murtonen 1958; Morag 1959; 1968; Allony 1963; Revell 1970; 1978; Hasel 1974; Van der Heide 1974; Hubman & Oesch 1983. 9 There are a short introduction in later rabbinical hand on page 1 and some notes of previous owners on pages 834 and 835, but these were apparently added after the completion of the manuscript. 10 Beit-Ari´e et al. 1972-1986, vol. 1 (1972), Planches. No. I,42.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

5

of the text of the Bible. But (pseudo-)Ben Naftali manuscripts are rare and have gained respect now that it has been established that the group of manuscripts which formerly were held to be specimina of the Ben Naftali school of Masoretes actually preserve the Palestinian vocalisation and accentuation.11 Revell prefers to call such manuscripts ‘Palestinian related’ (Revell 1978, 2), but as his list shows there are many manuscripts which mix Palestinian vowels with Tiberian ones (Revell 1978, 7-34) and a manuscript like JTS 594 preserves both systems of vocalisation,12 pointing to attempts to reconcile the two systems. BN lacks a number of characteristics held to be typical of the Ben Naftali tradition. For example, none of the consonantal variants attributed to the Ben Naftali school (Ginsburg 1897, 246-9) are present in BN. The manuscript vocalises laer:c]yIb] and laer:c]yIl], like the Ben Asher school, not laer:c]ybi in the manner of the Ben Naftali school. As has been observed by several scholars, the existing lists of diﬀerences between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali13 do not accurately reﬂect the diﬀerences found in medieval manuscripts. As far as we know, in none of the existing lists of so-called Ben Naftali or Tibero-Palestinian manuscripts the manuscript ‘h´ebreu 80’ of the National Library in Paris has been mentioned. The ﬁrst to note its peculiar Palestinian characteristics was one of us, be it long ago and in a somewhat obscure place.14 To mention only a few of these characteristics, 1. The Qere is adopted in the consonantal text, as is the custom in Palestinian manuscripts (Chiesa 1978, 310-11). 2. Patah. and Qames. are interchangeable. Even Qames. h.at.uf can be written with Patah.. 3. S.ere and Segol are interchangeable. Segolata like Ël,m, are often written as Ël,me. 4. Variants which are considered typical of Ben Naftali occur, for example Mic. 3:9 μybi¢[}t'm]h' instead of μybi¢[}t'm}˝hæâ (cf. Baer & Strack 1879, 33; Lipschuetz 1962, 38*). 11

See especially D´ıez Macho 1963; D´ıez Macho 1971a, 79-90. Kahle 1959, 338-44, Plates 5-6. 13 See e.g. Ginsburg 1897, 245-86; Yalon 1955; Cohen 1983-84. 14 De Moor 1963. 12

6

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel 5. Instead of the Shewa which the Tiberian Masoretes use with preﬁxes before yod with H . ireq or S.ere, this manuscript vocalises with H ireq, e.g. Hos. 7:14 WlyliyEyI instead of WlyliyEy“. . 6. Maqqef is often omitted. 7. Dageˇs is often omitted. 8. Consonantal Alef, Waw and Yod are marked by Mappiq.

The mere fact that BN is one of the very few Tibero-Palestinian manuscripts that have preserved a sizeable portion of the Hebrew Bible in a tradition diﬀering from that of the Tiberian Ben Asher tradition renders further research into its characteristics desirable. Here, however, we will conﬁne ourselves to the way of paragraphing found in this manuscript. John Revell was the only one who bothered to check whether paragraphing in such Tibero-Palestinian manuscripts is in accordance with the Palestinian fragments (Revell 1978). With regard to his MS P203 (Dietrich 1968, 7*-20* [Ob 1]) this appears to be true. In a considerable number of cases15 P203 and BN agree, lending support to the thesis that with BN we are dealing with a Palestinian tradition in Tiberian guise. In Palestinian manuscripts paragraphing is often diﬀerent from that of Leningrad Codex (LC). In the short fragment containing Jer. 1:12–2:29 published as manuscript K by Paul Kahle, for example, LC has 7 spaces, K only 4.16 The fragment P203 (Ob 1) has extra spaces at Josh. 15:45; 15:52; 15:58; 18:21; 21:4, whereas spaces are lacking at Josh. 15:48; 16:1; 19:32, 49; 21:1, 17, 23, 28, 30. The ﬁrst to provide a most helpful list of diﬀerences in paragraphing between Palestinian manuscripts and BHK was John Revell (Revell 1978, 254-9). We checked the diﬀerences with regard to paragraphing we found in BN as compared to LC with Revell’s list. In many cases of deviation BN appears to agree with Palestinian manuscripts (see below). But the reverse occurs too, testifying to a complex history of transmission. 15

Josh. 15:45, 48, 52, 58; 18:21; 19:7; 21:4. In this article we are giving references to the verse before which a space has been inserted. 16 Kahle 1930, 78-81, Pl. 9.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

7

It is absolutely certain that the scribe of BN was acquainted with the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. Therefore it is not right to claim the term ‘Proto-Tiberian’ or ‘Pre-Masoretic’ for this category of manuscripts. Not only the Tiberian vowels signs and, where present, the accents prove that, but also some other characteristics, such as the order of books which is exactly the same as in LC, even though especially with regard to the Ketuvim several competing systems of ordering existed up till the late Middle Ages.17 Over large stretches of text we found no deviation at all from the Tiberian paragraphing.18

2.1

Diﬀerentiation between Petuh.ah and Setumah

Even though many scholars have demonstrated that there cannot have existed a functional diﬀerence between Petuh.ah and Setumah because the manuscripts themselves do not support such a diﬀerentiation,19 certain colleagues keep demanding that we describe in greatest detail what is actually found in the manuscripts. For this reason we are providing this cumbersome highly detailed information in our tables in this article (and elsewhere) even though we are convinced that it is absolutely useless information and even though we suspect that the motive of those who were criticising us was belief rather than scholarship. In our opinion there is only one valid criterion: Is there a wide space20 indicating a pause in reading, or not? The strict distinction between Petuh.ah and Setumah was an ideal which the rabbis and medieval Masoretes tried to enforce, but in vain. Therefore it is simply erroneous to make much of the diﬀerence between Setumah and Petuh.ah, as even modern exegetes are sometimes prone to do.21 Indeed spaces dividing sections do indicate a certain understanding of the text and in this sense they are important, as we have tried to demonstrate in many publications. But a functional distinction between Petuh.ah and Setumah is a myth. 17

See Ginsburg 1897, 60-1. E.g. 1 Kgs 4:18–8:33; Isa. 1:1–5:17. In the whole book of Ezekiel paragraphing deviates only rarely from LC. 19 One of the earliest to observe this was Ginsburg 1897, 10; see now Tov 2004, 149-59. 20 Deﬁned as ‘wider than other spaces in the surrounding text’. 21 E.g. Langlamet 1985; Van den Berg 1999, 192-201. 18

8

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

So we avoid the traditional terms Setumah and Petuh.ah where this is possible and use descriptive abbreviations instead, be it contre coeur. We add some abbreviations we will use later with the Greek and Syriac manuscripts. –

= =

§ 1B 2B XB AC BN C CB

= = = = = = = =

CC CR E GB

= = = =

The manuscript has a lacuna or is unreadable at this point The manuscript has no major divider here. Paragraphos 1 blank line 2 blank lines More blank lines Aleppo Codex Bibl. Nat. Paris H´ebreu 80 Capitalisation Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus Cairo Codex Codex Reuchlinianus Ekthesis Ginsburg Edition

FG LB LC LR LS NS P1 P2 PB

= = = = = = = = =

r RS WS X+

= = = =

X-

=

Ornaments, colour, ﬁgures Combination of LS+1B Leningrad Codex Combination of LS and RS Open space to the left Narrow space Bibl. Palatina Parma 2700 Bibl. Palatina Parma 3106 Parma Bible, Bibl. Palatina Parma 2808 rosette or diamond Open space to the right Wide inline space according to GB X manuscripts have a space according to GB X manuscripts lack a space

3 Comparison of Paragraphing in B.N. h´ebreu 80 and LC First of all we want to compare the paragraphing in BN with that of LC. We follow the customary order of the biblical books, even though LC and BN both have Chronicles after Malachi. The outcome of our collation is marginally uncertain because sometimes it is not entirely clear whether a space is intentional or not. The customary distinction between spaces 1 letter wide and spaces more than one letter wide is no more than a rule of thumb.22 Moreover, we cannot exclude the occasional error on our side either. Nevertheless the diﬀerences are so obvious that they require an explanation.

3.1

Minuses and Pluses in B.N. h´ebreu 80

First we enumerate the minuses, deﬁned as places where LC does have a paragraph division by inserting space, whereas BN does not have it. Next we enumerate the pluses, where the reverse is the case. 22

In Judg. 8:10, for example, BN has a NS instead of a WS. In Proverbs spaces in BN separating cola and verses are sometimes so wide that one might hesitate whether or not to regard them as major delimitation markers.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

9

Where BN agrees with pluses in Revell’s list of paragraphs speciﬁc to Palestinian manuscripts, this is indicated by [R]. Minuses in Joshua 6:26; 7:10; 8:1; 9:3; 10:14, 28 (?); 13:33; 15:48; 24:19. Pluses in Joshua 6:27 (WS); 7:2 (WS); 14:1 (LS); 15:45 (WS) [R], 52 (WS) [R], 58 (WS) [R], 60 (WS); 18:21 (WS) [R], 25 (WS [R]); 19:7 (WS) [R]; 21:4 (WS) [R], 8 (WS) [R], 40 (WS), 40b (WS); 23:5 (NS); 24:21 (WS [R]). Minuses in Judges 1:30, 34; 4:13; 6:7, 21, 22b; 7:5b; 9:37; 14:20; 16:1; 18:7; 20:20, 35; 21:19, 23 Pluses in Judges 7:23 (LS); 8:11 (WS); 15:1 (WS). Minuses in 1 Samuel 3:6, 19; 4:18; 5:9; 6:15, 21; 8:10, 11; 9:21, 22; 10:10, 18b, 22b; 13:15, 19; 14:1, 12b, 17, 19b, 25, 36b, 52; 15:17, 27, 32, 33, 34; 16:2b, 12b; 17:15, 17, 37b; 18:30; 19:1, 14, 15; 20:10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 27b, 30, 32, 34; 21:6, 10; 22:5, 6, 8b, 9, 12, 18; 23:2b, 4, 4b, 6, 10, 11b, 13, 19; 24:7, 9, 17; 25:32; 26:8, 10, 15, 25; 28:16; 29:4; 30:1, 13, 22, 23, 29. Pluses in 1 Samuel 6:1 (WS); 15:22 (WS), 23 (WS), 26 (WS); 17:26 (WS), 48 (WS); 24:2 (WS); 26:21 (WS). Minuses in 2 Samuel 1:13; 2:5; 3:14; 5:1; 7:25; 10:17b; 11:25; 12:1, 13, 13b, 28, 31, 32; 14:5, 8, 10, 13, 24, 28, 31; 15:27; 16:10, 11, 13b, 14; 17:1, 5, 14, 15, 24, 27; 18:2b, 4, 28b, 32; 19:1, 6, 9, 23, 25, 30, 39, 43, 49; 20:1, 4, 6, 9, 10b, 14b; 21:1b, 6b; 23:9, 18, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 37b, 38, 39; 24:3, 10b, 11b, 17. Pluses in 2 Samuel 3:20 (WS); 12:7 (LS); 15:6 (WS); 19:17 (WS). Minuses in 1 Kings 1:7; 4:1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18; 8:33; 10:14; 12:20; 15:25; 16:23; 17:14; 20:23, 26, 31.

10

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

Pluses in 1 Kings 1:43 (WS); 3:1 (WS); 8:41 (WS); 11:14 (WS), 41 (WS) Minuses in 2 Kings 5:20; 6:7; 8:18; 11:17; 12:1; 25:23. Pluses in 2 Kings 1:4 (WS); 15:37 (LS); 19:35 (WS). Minuses in Isaiah 5:20; 7:21; 16:7; 17:7; 19:16; 26:1, 12; 27:2; 36:16b; 37:1; 43:25; 45:9; 51:3; 56:3. Pluses in Isaiah 5:18 (WS); 7:3 (WS), 20 (WS); 10:27 (WS); 13:9 (WS); 16:5 (LS), 13 (RS); 19:23 (WS); 28:23 (WS); 30:1 (WS), 14 (WS); 32:18 (LS); 33:10 (WS); 34:1 (WS); 37:15 (LS), 21 (WS); 48:20 (WS); 49:5 (WS), 8 (WS), 25 (WS); 50:10 (WS); 52:4 (WS); 53:1 (WS); 57:3 (LS); 62:6 (WS); 63:17 (WS); 64:3 (RS). Minuses in Jeremiah 3:6; 4:19; 5:20; 6:21; 7:12; 8:17; 9:3, 19; 10:22; 12:13; 13:12b; 14:13; 15:11, 17, 18; 17:7, 11, 21; 18:18; 19:15; 22:3, 11, 28, 30; 23:14, 30; 25:27b; 26:11; 27:19; 29:8, 24; 33:4; 35:19; 36:32; 37:17, 18; 38:2, 7, 17, 28, 28b; 39:1, 2, 15; 41:7; 42:1, 18; 44:23; 45:2, 4; 46:28; 47:2, 6; 49:12, 20; 50:1, 6, 22, 31; 51:54, 58; 52:31. Pluses in Jeremiah 1:14 (WS); 8:23 (WS); 11:20 (WS); 13:12 (WS); 16:3 (LS); 23:1 (WS), 33 (WS); 26:22 (WS); 29:13 (RS), 17 (WS); 32:26 (WS); 50:21 (WS); 52:4 (WS), 28 (WS). Minuses in Ezekiel 8:15; 9:1; 10:1; 18:24; 20:27; 22:19; 23:11, 35; 33:27; 36:11; 38:7, 14; 43:27b; 48:12. Pluses in Ezekiel 12:3 (WS); 25:13 (WS), 16 (WS); 26:3 (WS); 32:3 (WS); 43:18 (WS); 44:9 (WS); 45:16 (WS). Minuses in Hosea 9:17; 14:9.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

11

Pluses in Hosea We do not include the dubious cases of somewhat wider spaces before 12:10 and 13:8. Minuses in Joel None. Pluses in Joel None. Minuses in Amos 4:10, 12; 5:9; 6:8; 7:1, 10, 14. Pluses in Amos 5:3 (WS); 6:11 (WS); 7:4 (WS); 8:11 (WS); 9:7 (WS). Minuses in Obadiah None. Pluses in Obadiah None. Minus in Jonah 4:4. Pluses in Jonah None. Minuses in Micah 2:3; 3:9. Pluses in Micah 2:12 (LS); 4:11 (WS); 5:2 (RS). Minus in Nahum 2:1. Pluses in Nahum None. Minus in Habakkuk 2:18. Plus in Habakkuk 3:3 (WS). Minuses in Zephaniah None.

12

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

Pluses in Zephaniah 1:8 (WS) [R]; 2:8 (WS). Minuses in Haggai None. Plus in Haggai 1:13 (WS) [R]. Minuses in Zechariah 8:4; 11:17; 12:7; 13:1 Pluses in Zechariah 1:16 (RS); 14:12 (LS). Minuses in Malachi None. Pluses in Malachi None. Minuses in Psalms See our comments below under Pluses in Psalms. Pluses in Psalms Whereas the spaces separating the cola usually follow the Masoretic distinctive accents in BN, this is not the case in LC which often favours an esthetically pleasant layout. One might therefore say that the pluses in BN are numerous if compared to LC. And vice-versa. Whereas LC separates the Psalms by a blank line or an LS in which the number of the Psalm has been written, BN uses very wide spaces in which – if present – the title of the Psalm is written. Further research into the colometry of the poetic books in BN is highly desirable. Minuses in Job None. In Job both manuscripts place superscriptions identifying the speakers on a separate line, after an LS or 1B. There are no major diﬀerences between the two manuscripts in the poetic parts of the book, even the wide spaces before 28:12, 20; 32:1, 2, 6 and 40:3, 6 are present in both. Pluses in Job 1:13 (WS); 2:2 (WS); 32:3 (LS), 4 (WS), 5 (NS); 42:11 (NS). See further above, Minusses in Job.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

13

Minuses in Proverbs 3:4, 11; 6:1, 26; 7:24; 14:1;19:10; 23:1, 6; 24:28; 28:5, 17; 29:18; 30:24. Pluses in Proverbs 11:28 (WS); 18:8 (RS). The text is written in colometrical form with rather wide spaces separating the cola. Hence it is sometimes diﬃcult to decide whether an extra break might be intended. Minuses in Ruth None. Pluses in Ruth 1:18 (NS), 22 (NS). The genealogy at the end of the book is written in cola. Minuses in Song of Songs 2:15; 4:1. Pluses in Song of Songs 1:2 (WS); 1:8 (NS); 3:11 (WS); 7:6 (WS). Minuses in Qohelet None. See below, Pluses in Qoheleth. Pluses in Qohelet Although BN agrees with LC with regard to the few major divisions, it should be noted that as in Psalms the colometry of BN often deviates from LC, partly because the latter favours an esthetically pleasing division over the Masoretic accents. We will provide an example of this at the end of this article. Minuses in Lamentations None. Plus in Lamentations 5:10 (NS). Minuses in Esther 1:10; 5:1; 9:12, 20. Pluses in Esther 1:13 (WS), 19 (RS). Minuses in Daniel 3:26; 5:8; 12:3, 9. Pluses in Daniel

14

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

2:19 LS, 31 (WS), 37 (LS); 3:3 (LS), 10 (WS), 21 (NS), 28 (NS); 5:9 (WS); 6:15 (WS), 16 (WS), 26 (WS); 12:12 (WS). Minuses in Ezra 1:10, 11; 2:3, 69b; 3:1b, 9, 9b, 12; 4:12,18; 5:2, 4, 6, 9; 8:2b, 2c, 3b; 9:3; 10:21, 25. Pluses in Ezra 1:9 (WS); 2:43b (WS), 44 (WS), 45 (WS), 46 (WS), 47 (WS), 48 (WS), 49 (WS), 50 (LS), 51 (WS), 53 (WS), 54 (WS), 55 (WS), 56 (WS), 57 (WS), 58 (WS), 60 (WS), 62 (WS), 63 (NS), 64 (NS); 4:11 (RS), 14 (WS), 21 (WS); 7:25 (WS); 10:4 (WS), 12 (WS), 22 (WS), 36 (WS), 39 (WS), 40 (WS), 41 (WS), 42 (WS), 44 (WS). Minuses in Nehemiah 3:2b, 3, 4b, 4c, 5, 8b, 10b, 23b, 26, 27, 29b, 30, 30b; 7:14, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 55, 68b. Pluses in Nehemiah 3:1 (WS), 14 (RS), 23 (WS); 7:1 (RS), 47 (WS), 48 (WS), 49 (WS), 50 (WS), 51 (WS), 52 (WS), 53 (WS), 54 (NS), 56 (WS), 57 (WS), 58 NS, 59 (WS), 60 (WS), 69 (RS), 70 (WS); 8:17 (WS); 9:16 (WS); 10:12 (NS), 29 (WS); 12:13 (NS), 15 (NS), 17 (NS), 18 (NS), 19 (NS), 21 (NS), 22 (WS), 29 (WS); 13:5 (RS). Minuses in 1 Chronicles 1:17, 18, 24, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34b, 35, 38, 40, 40b, 41b, 42; 2:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 21, 31, 33, 47, 50; 3:22; 4:1, 28; 5:11, 14, 28, 29, 30; 6:14, 29, 33, 42; 7:3, 6, 14; 8:3, 29, 33, 35; 9:2, 12, 33, 39; 10:4b, 6, 11, 31b, 32b, 33; 12:10, 13b, 19; 14:3; 15:17b; 16:5; 19:4, 8, 12b; 21:8, 13; 22:1, 6b; 23:7, 13; 24:6, 20; 25:6b; 26:6, 15; 27:5, 25b, 26, 28, 28b, 29, 30, 31, 33b; 28:9. Pluses in 1 Chronicles 1:7 (WS), 9 (WS); 2:18 (WS), 42 (WS); 6:24 (WS) [R], 50 (WS), 63 (WS); 7:7 (WS); 11:47 (WS); 14:8 (RS); 16:13 (WS), 14 (RS), 15b (RS), 16 (WS), 16b (WS), 17 (RS), 17b (WS), 18 (WS), 19 (WS), 20 (WS), 20b (WS), 21b (WS), 22 (WS), 22b (WS), 24 (WS), 24b (WS), 25 (WS), 25b (WS), 27 (WS), 28 (WS), 28b (WS), 29 (WS), 30 (WS), 32 (WS), 33 (WS), 34 (WS), 34b (WS), 35 (WS), 36 (WS), 39 (WS); 19:6 (WS); 20:5 (RS), 6 (WS); 23:15 (WS), 18 (WS), 20 (WS), 23 (WS); 24:8 (WS), 9 (WS), 10 (WS), 11 (WS), 12 (WS), 13 (WS), 14 (RS), 15(WS), 16 (WS), 17 (RS), 18 (NS), 23 (WS);

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

15

25:2 (WS), 3 (WS), 10 (WS), 11 (WS). From 25:12-31 on the scribe gives up his eﬀort to mark every new entry and abandons the wide spacing. 26:21 (RS), 30 (WS); 27:4 (RS), 32 (WS). Minuses in 2 Chronicles 4:11; 5:1b, 26; 6:41; 9:22; 10:6, 12, 17; 13:1, 6, 10, 22; 14:7b; 15:1; 17:19; 18:23; 19:4b; 24:26; 27:6b; 28:9, 14; 30:1, 20, 24b; 34:23, 26b; 35:1, 25; 36:23 Pluses in 2 Chronicles 1:18 (LS); 4:9 (WS); 5:1 (WS); 6:34 (WS); 7:3 (WS), 10 (WS); 10:8 (WS); 11:18 (WS); 13:7 (LS); 16:12 (WS); 17:14 (WS); 19:1 (RS); 19:28 (NS); 22:10 (WS), 11 (WS); 23:9 (WS), 12 (WS); 24:6 (RS); 28:7 (WS); 29:11 (LS); 31:17b (WS); 32:32 (RS); 34:12 (WS); 36:1 (LS), 15 (LR), 18 (LS). In total we counted 486 minuses and 289 pluses with regard to paragraphing in BN as compared to LC. Surely these numbers are signiﬁcant, especially because BN seems to have preserved the old Palestinian way of paragraphing at least in part. On the whole, however, the diﬀerences are less impressive than the high numbers may suggest, since in far more cases BN and LC agree completely. This is in accordance with what Revell found with regard to the paragraphing in Palestinian manuscripts (Revell 1978, 254-9). Nevertheless it is worthwhile to delve somewhat deeper into the diﬀerences.

4 Possible Explanations 4.1

Negligence on the Part of the Scribe

Like other Palestinian and Tibero-Palestinian codices BN is a carelessly written manuscript, probably only intended for personal study. We want to illustrate this with a few examples. In 2 Sam. 15:7 the manuscript reads ˚lmh yçna blAta instead of larçy yçna blAta. The punctuator left ˚lmh unvocalised and entered the correct reading in the margin. On page 397 of the manuscipt the scribe starts all over again with Ezek. 17:1 after Ezek. 17:10, continuing for two whole lines before he discovered his error. From the Book of Micah we collected the following deviations from LC, ignoring diﬀerences in defective or plene spelling,

16

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah

1:2 lkyhm hwhy for lkyhm ynda. 1:13 tbl for ˆwyx tbl. 2:8 hmlç omitted (later added by a diﬀerent hand). 3:3 tjlqh for tjlq. 4:7 μywgl for ywgl. 5:5 twice h[bç. 5:7 μybr omitted. 7:5 law instead of la. 7:7 yhla at the end of the verse omitted. 7:9 byça instead of rça. 7:18 awh omitted.

In 1 Chron. 11:33 the scribe skips rkçAˆb μayja as a result of an aberratio oculi (yrrhh at the end of v. 34 and in the middle of v. 35). 1 Chron. 27:5 has been skipped entirely, probably because both v. 5 and v. 6 contain the name of whynb. It would be easy to multiply these examples. This renders negligence on the part of the scribe with regard to paragraphing likely. The question now arises: does an inaccurate manuscript like this deserve serious attention? Probably not if we would have a suﬃcient number of better Tibero-Palestinian manuscripts at our disposal. However, Palestinian and Tibero-Palestinian manuscripts are rare, because the Tiberian Masoretes were partly successful in imposing their admirably strict system throughout the Jewish world. If we want to study diverging systems of paragraphing, we will have to do with the few manuscripts that survive, even though both Palestinian and Tibero-Palestinian manuscripts are not as accurate as we would wish.

4.2

Paragraph Marking in the Middle of Verses

The phenomenon of a break, or even several breaks, in the middle of verses is known in the Masoretic tradition as qwsp [xmab hqsp, ‘a space in the middle of a verse’.23 There are far more such spaces in LC than in the Masoretic list compiled by Ginsburg.24 This might suggest that actually such unexpected spaces are the result of errors, 23

See on this phenomenon Kasher 1962; Weisberg 1994; Tov 2004, 140-1, 154-5, all with earlier literature. 24 Ginsburg 1880, 57a, No. 185.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

17

not necessarily by Shelomo b. Bu¯ayah, the scribe of the codex, but perhaps by his predecessor(s). It has long been known that LC, although one of the most beautiful and complete medieval codices in the Tiberian tradition, is certainly not free from errors.25 It is therefore signiﬁcant that in BN such breaks in the middle of verses are all but absent. Paragraph markings in the middle of a verse are, as compared to LC, lacking in, Judg. 6:22b; 7:5b; 1 Sam. 10:18b, 22b; 14:12b, 19b, 36b; 16:2b, 12b; 17:37b; 20:27b; 22:8b; 23:2b, 4b, 11b; 2 Sam. 10:17b; 12:13b; 16:13b; 18:2b, 28b; 20:10b, 14b; 21:1b, 6b; 23:37b; 24:10b, 11b; Isa. 36:16b; Jer. 13:12b; 25:27b; 38:28b; Ezek. 43:27b; Ezra 2:69b; 3:1b, 9b; 8:2b, 2c, 3b; Neh. 3:2b, 4b, 4c, 8b, 10b, 23b, 29b, 30b; 7:68b; 1 Chron. 1:34b, 40b, 41b; 10:4b, 31b, 32b; 12:13b; 15:17b; 19:12b; 22:6b; 25:6b; 27:25b, 28b, 33b; 2 Chron. 5:1b; 14:7b; 19:4b; 27:6b; 30:24b; 34:26b. Only once BN agrees with LC in accepting a major division in the middle of a verse: Qoh. 10:1b, where it is actually in a logical place. It therefore seems that BN consciously avoids such breaks in the middle of verses. This Tibero-Palestinian manuscript may well represent a tradition that did not accept the qwsp [xmab hqsp. If we disregard the rare occurrences in lists, there are only two places where BN itself let slip in this kind of error, Josh. 21:40b before μytç and 2 Chron. 31:17b after .μywlhw, both obvious errors. The reason for the often illogical spaces in the middle of verses may be very trivial. A scribe might insert some extra space to ﬁll out the line, for example. One of us has demonstrated that such errors do occur in medieval manuscripts and might easily creep into the tradition, especially since the knowledge about the function of these spaces was waning.26 BN itself has a WS in 1 Kgs 22:31b between μynçw and rmal, but this space was clearly the result of an erasure. Similar errors are found in 2 Kgs 2:14b and 8:16b. The next scribe might thoughtlessly copy such pseudo-spaces, or might include them out of respect for his predecessor.27 Rimon Kasher 25 It is bad scholarship, however, to simply correct such errors to make the manuscript comply to the Halakhah, as Aron Dotan has done in his edition (Dotan 2001, cf. Korpel 2004). 26 Korpel 2007, 146-7, 153-4. 27 For Babylonian parallels of this type of scribal reverence see Weisberg 1994, 42-5.

18

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

and Emanuel Tov suppose that breaks in the middle of verses are the result of a mix up of the division into verses and the division into sections (Kasher 1985, 51*; Tov 2004, 140-1, 154-5). This too is a possible explanation, although it is apt to add that not only verses, but also cola and lines were sometimes delimited by spaces, creating even more possible sources of confusion.28 Finally some scribes strived after a beautifull layout of poems and lists and this could be achieved by using extra spaces which later scribes might interpret as paragraph markings. The high number of BN’s pluses in, for example, the lists of names in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles might be explained in this way and does not have much signiﬁcance for the sectioning.

4.3

Hypercorrection and Correct Sectioning

Sometimes a scribe discovered belatedly that he had skipped a sectioning space and hastily entered it before the next verse. Such a hypercorrection might be suspected behind the deviations in Josh. 6:26-27. The scribe of BN forgot the (logical) space before 6:26 and entered one (illogically) before 6:27. Also the reverse occurs – before Jer. 50:21 the scribe inserted a space too early, whereas he omitted it before the next verse where it has its natural place. We have to imagine how diﬃcult it was for a scribe who often knew the text by heart to remember the spot where he would have to insert the next wide space marking a new paragraph. The scribes tried to memorise the last words of the preceding verse or the ﬁrst words of the following verse where they had to insert the space. This can be deduced from the homoioteleuton or homoioarkton errors they sometimes made.29 Also BN has its share of this type of errors, e.g. in 1 Chron. 7:6-7; Dan. 5:8-9; Ezra 10:21-22. Often, however, the scribes simply forgot the space altogether and this no doubt is the correct interpretation of the large number of minuses in BN as compared to LC. Even in model codices from the Ben Asher school omission of paragraphing is a common error. Yet it may also be that in certain cases the scribe of LC (or one of his predecessors) made such errors whereas the Palestinian tradition 28

Korpel 2000, 29, 34, 40. Tov 2004, 138 emphasises the haphazard nature of such attempts. 29 See e.g. De Moor 2000, 160; 2002, 270; Korpel 2005, 154.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

19

incorporated in BN has preserved the correct sectioning. Examples of passages where this possibility might be taken into account are Josh. 13:33 (-) – 14:1 (+); Judg. 14:20 (-) – 15:1 (+); Jer. 13:12 (+) – 13:12b (-); Ezra 1:9 (+) – Ezra 1:10 (-). See for the latter example Fig. 1 – how the editors of BHS who inserted a space before v. 9 on their own account would have loved to know that one!

5 The Book of Isaiah as a Testcase In order to establish whether the paragraphing in BN merits further study we have examined the diﬀerences between LC and BN in greater detail for the Book of Isaiah in order to establish whether BN’s paragraphing may rest on existing tradition or should simply be ascribed to the whims of its scribe. In 28 places BN does have an extra space as compared to LC according to the BHS.30 In 14 places LC has a space where BN does not indicate a break. A total number of 42 spacing variants on the 209 cases of p and s in the LC text of Isaiah constitutes a deviation of 20%. This is not exceptional among medieval manuscripts that do not keep strictly to the Ben Asher tradition. The Parma Bible,31 for example, has 67 spacing variants (32%) as compared to LC in Isaiah.

5.1

Comparison with Other Medieval Hebrew Manuscripts

First we compared the diﬀerences between the paragraphing in the Book of Isaiah according to LC and BN with that in a number of other medieval Hebrew manuscripts.32 See for the abbreviations used the table above. We have added the numbers of variant readings with regard to spaces Christian Ginsburg collected in his monumental but rather eclectic edition of the Hebrew Bible (Ginsburg 1911) because his evidence sometimes lends extra perspective to what we ourselves have found. 30 In this article we refrain from commenting upon the value of such diﬀerences for the exegesis of Isaiah. See on this aspect e.g. Olley 1998; Steck 1998; Korpel, De Moor 1998. 31 Sperber 1959. 32 For participants in the work of the Pericope group the full datasheet is available on https://www.google.com/a/pericopedata.com/, see note 43 below.

20 5.1.1

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel Cases in Isaiah Where LC Seems Correct

Comparison with seven other medieval manuscripts33 demonstrates once again that the scribes did not distinguish between Petuh.ot and Setumot systematically. In seven cases the scribe of BN apparently omitted a space accidentally because all or nearly all other Masoretic manuscripts do have it.34 In three cases the study of BN and the seven other manuscripts leads to the conclusion that the interpretation of the actual state of LC by the editors of the BHS needs to be revised because LC does have a narrow space (NS) that was probably intended as a section marker.35 In seven cases it is uncertain if LC does preserve an authentic sectioning tradition because the number of supporting Masoretic manuscripts is too low.36 This is not to say that LC errs in these cases. Before we dismiss it we have to look at the pre-Masoretic witnesses, as we shall do below. 5.1.2

Cases in Isaiah Where BN Seems Correct

Comparison with the seven other medieval codices in the cases where BN diﬀers from LC in having a space yields some interesting results. In twelve cases the scribe of LC seems to have omitted a space accidentally because BN does have it like all or nearly all other Masoretic manuscripts.37 In two cases LC does have a sectioning space which is not supported by BN and the rest of the medieval manuscripts.38 In eleven cases BN does have a space but is it uncertain whether this manuscript may have preserved an authentic tradition because the number of supporting Masoretic manuscripts is too low.39 This not to say that BN errs in these cases. Before we dismiss it we have to look at the pre-Masoretic witnesses, as we shall do below. 33

CC, AC, PB, CR, CB, P1, P2. Isa. 5:20; 7:21; 26:1; 27:2; 37:1 (only PB and P2 missing); 43:25; 45:9; 46:5 (only P1 missing); 56:3 (only CB and P1 missing). 35 Isa. 7:3; 16:13; 48:20. 36 Isa. 16:7 (0); 17:7 (0); 19:16 (P2 only); 26:12 (CC, AC, CB only); 36:16b (AC and CB only); 43:25 (0); 51:3 (0). 37 Isa. 16:5 (only P1 missing); 28:23 (only AC missing); 30:1; 33:10 (PB, P1, P2 missing); 34:1; 37:15 (CC, PB, P2 missing); 49:5; 49:8 (only PB missing); 50:10; 52:4 (only PB missing); 53:1 (only P1 and P2 missing); 57:3 (only PB missing). 38 Isa. 16:7; 17:7. 39 Isa. 7:20 (CR and P2); 10:27 (PB, P1 and P2 only); 13:9 (CR only); 19:23 (AC and CB only); 30:14 (0); 32:18 (0); 37:21 (CC and CB only); 49:25 (AC only); 62:6 (0); 63:17 (0); 64:3 (AC and CB only). 34

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript 5.1.3

21

Interim Conclusion

None of the medieval Hebrew manuscripts is ﬂawless with regard to paragraphing, not even the exemplary codices produced in the Ben Asher school. The BHS does not represent the actual state of the Leningrad Codex with regard to paragraphing accurately. For these two reasons alone it must be clear that researchers should not base their conclusions with regard to paragraphing on the BHS or LC alone. The diﬀerent paragraphing of BN cannot simply be ascribed to an impressionistic approach of its scribe. In fact, this rather sloppy Tibero-Palestinian manuscript has often preserved the Masoretic mainstream paragraphing tradition better than LC. This prompts the question whether also in the remaining cases which we could not decide on the basis of the medieval manuscripts available to us BN, though itself not pre-Masoretic, may have preserved a genuine pre-Masoretic sectioning tradition. To this end we now switch over to a comparison with the paragraphing in the Isaiah manuscripts of Qumran and the ancient versions. 5.1.4

Comparison with Pre-Masoretic Manuscripts of Isaiah

Of the cases where we were uncertain whether or not a sectioning space in LC rests on authentic tradition, or should be ascribed to a whim or error on the part of its scribe Shelomo b. Bu¯ayah, preMasoretic manuscripts support BN ten times. Isa. 10:27 – BN WS, supported by a number of Masoretic manuscripts as well as manuscripts of Ì, and Í. Isa. 13:9 – BN’s WS and CR’s LR are now supported by the NS in 1ŒIsaa as well as manuscripts of Ì and ◊. Isa. 16:7 – L has a very clear spacing before this verse which is not supported by any of the major Masoretic codices and is also lacking in BN. L gets hardly any support from the pre-Masoretic witnesses. Isa. 19:23 – BN’s WS is not only corroborated by AC and CB, but also by 4ŒIsab , ÌS , ÌB , ÌA , ÌQ , ÌV , Í and ◊. Isa. 36:16b – as expected, no pre-Masoretic manuscripts support LC. Isa. 37:21 – BN has a WS which is supported by only three Masoretic manuscripts, but in addition to that by manuscripts of all ancient versions. Isa. 49:25 – spacing is lacking in the L, but is present in BN, AC

22

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

and ÌB . Moreover 1ŒIsaa has a narrow space and Ginsburg found 10 manuscripts which have a spacing here too. Isa. 62:6 – again the manuscript is supported by some pre-Masoretic witnesses (narrow spaces in 1ŒIsaa and ÌQ , full paragraphing in the ÌV ). Ginsburg’s data illustrate that both traditions, with or without spacing, were continued. Isa. 63:17 – the WS in BN is supported by three manuscripts of Ì. Isa. 64:3 – the space in BN is shared not only with AC and CB, but also with ÌA . In ﬁve cases pre-Masoretic manuscripts side with LC against BN. Isa. 17:7 – despite the fact that BN is supported by the majority of Masoretic manuscripts, LC is supported by 1ŒIsaa , ÌS and ÌB . Isa. 19:16 – despite the fact only one of the Masoretic manuscripts supports LC (P2), the support from the side of the ancient versions is impressive. Isa. 26:12 – apparently the circumstance that only three of the other Masoretic manuscripts we collated support LC is accidental as the ancient versions and Ginsburg’s data prove. Isa. 43:25 – 1ŒIsaa and the testimony of the versions support LC and again Ginsburg’s data conﬁrm that this tradition has also been preserved in some other Hebrew manuscripts. Isa. 51:3 – that even one medieval manuscript may sometimes preserve an authentic ancient tradition is demonstrated by the support for LC in ÌA and ÌQ . All this is hard to explain if the diﬀerences in paragraphing between LC and BN did not rest on pre-Masoretic tradition. This is not to say that scribes did not allow themselves some liberty in placing section markings. Cases like Isa. 16:7 where LC stands virtually alone, and Isa. 30:14 and 32:18 where BN gets hardly any support testify to their occasional creative initiative. As Dirk Jongkind observes in his recent study on the scribal habits of those who copied the Codex Sinaiticus, both factors seem to have been operative, the inﬂuence of the exemplar and the personal preference of the scribe.40 However, the majority of the cases we studied in Isaiah points in the direction of various traditions which the Masoretes of Tiberias failed to sup40

Jongkind 2007, 95-109. See also Tov 2004, 150.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

23

press entirely. Such traditions should be treated just as faithfully as textual variants in textual criticism. It should also be taken into account that certain scribes seem to have deliberately economised on the use of spaces, probably partly because parchment was expensive, partly because in view of the great diﬀerences in paragraphing between the manuscripts at their disposal they were as sceptical of the worth of spaces as some modern scholars are. Examples of this attitude are ÌB and the Peshit.ta manuscript 7a1. A larger number of paragraph markers does not make a manuscript less trustworthy.41 The number of deviations between LC and BN in a long book like Isaiah is not very impressive and the number of deviations that really deserve to be taken seriously is dwindling in comparison with the far greater number where all or most witnesses agree. However, anybody who is acquainted with the ﬁerce battles between exegetes about the delimitation of paragraphs42 will know that all evidence is worth consideration, especially if it may go back on ancient Palestinian tradition.

6 Conclusion The scribes of antiquity were the intellectuals of their time, creative people who aspired to be writers rather than copyists. Even when canonisation or oﬃcial recognition of a certain text recension had taken place, scribes were tacitly granted the freedom to introduce minor changes reﬂecting their own understanding of the text. This double allegiance to faithfulness on the one hand, personal creativity on the other, resulted in manuscripts that were a mixture of tradition and innovation. In the case of an authorised recension, the room for the latter was obviously small. This is also reﬂected in the paragraphing of Bible manuscripts. In our opinion the analysis of unit delimitation should be subjected to the same rules as textual criticism. Therefore a manuscript that deviates frequently from the Tiberian tradition has to be evaluated critically. Such a manuscript is the undated Tibero-Palestinian manuscript 41 42

Compare our observations in Korpel & De Moor 1998, 653. See e.g. De Moor 2000; 2005; Korpel 2001, 5-30.

24

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

‘h´ebreu 80’ in the National Library in Paris (abbreviation: BN). As far as we know, this codex of the Prophets and Writings has hitherto not been identiﬁed as a member of a class of manuscripts which is variously designated as ‘pseudo-Ben Naftali’ or ‘PalestinianTiberian’. Its vocalisation and – on a lesser scale – its accentuation often deviate from the Tiberian standard. Apart from the Codex Reuchlinianus, no other Tibero-Palestinian manuscript is so extensive and this alone invites further study. What makes the manuscript interesting to students of unit delimitation is that in about 775 cases its paragraphing deviates from that of the Leningrad Codex (LC). The total number of p and s in the LC-text of the Nebiim and Ketuvim being 1781, this constitutes a signiﬁcant deviation of 44%. We have collected these instances per book of the Bible so that other researchers can take them into account if they want to. We were able to establish that fairly often these deviations agree with deviations John Revell tabulated in his Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents (Revell 1978). Also in this respect the manuscript seems to set forth the Palestinian tradition. Like many Palestinian manuscripts that were not checked as rigorously as the exemplary codices of Tiberian Ben Asher school, BN has its share of errors and idiosyncracies. We discuss a number of them in this paper. This also pertains to paragraphing. But the reverse happens too, BN seeming to indicate that paragraphing in LC may be at fault or, in other cases, that the editors of BHS have misinterpreted LC. For the Book of Isaiah we have studied divergencies between LC and BN in greater detail, comparing them ﬁrst with other medieval Hebrew manuscripts, and then with pre-Masoretic manuscripts from Qumran and manuscripts of the ancient versions.43 In his book on the Palestinian Bible manuscripts Bruno Chiesa has noted a number of remarkable parallels between Palestinian manuscripts and deﬁnitely pre-Masoretic traditions as represented by 43 The full details are available to members of the Pericope group in a spreadsheet that can be accessed via the Internet at Google Apps via the address http://www.googleapps.com/a/pericopedata.com. A username and password may be requested from the administrator by sending an e-mail to [email protected].

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

25

the manuscripts from the Judean Desert and the ancient versions (Chiesa 125-267, 312-27). But unfortunately Chiesa did not study paragraphing. Now it is clear, however, that also paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian manuscript like BN agrees to a some extent with the paragraphing in pre-Masoretic tradition. Even though in the end the number of cases where BN’s paragraphing in the Book Isaiah might be preferable to that of LC appears to be rather small, we concluded that any fresh evidence in the much discussed ﬁeld of unit delimitation has to be welcomed, especially if it seems to conﬁrm that diﬀerent Palestinian traditions of paragraphing were in existence before the Tiberian Masoretes tried to ﬁx the rules and continued to be transmitted even long after. We wholeheartedly agree with John Olley’s plea for inclusion of data on paragraphing in the textual apparatus of critical editions of the Hebrew Bible.44 As he has shown, not even The Hebrew University Bible treats this kind of material adequately. Unfortunately BHQ does not improve on that pattern. The Petuh.ot and Setumot are still designated by the interposition of p and s and the selection of variants with regard to paragraphing is eclectic (cf. Schenker et al. 2004, X, XIV). Moreover, spacing is not only a means to divide the biblical text into sections, it is also used extensively in the poetic parts of the Bible to format the text. We cannot delve deeply into that matter in this context, but one example may suﬃce to demonstrate that also with regard to the formatting of poetry we should not rely on LC alone. In a poetic passage like Qoh. 3:2-9 BHQ follows the layout of LC slavishly, without any critical comment or reference to other attested layout schemes.45 As a ﬁnal example of the value of BN we contrast the layout of Qoh. 3:2-9 in LC with that of BN. First LC’s fanciful colometric arrangement (Fig. 2, next page). Nobody would suspect this bizarre way of writing behind the layout of the BHS which registers only one Setumah before v. 9. But why do the BHQ and Dotan’s edition (Dotan 2001, 1037-8) prefer a layout that may be esthetically pleasing but is deﬁnitely not in accordance with the Tiberian Masoretic accents? What is a student of Hebrew supposed to make of this caprice of LC’s scribe?46 44

Olley 1998. Y.A.P Goldman, in: Schenker et al. 2004, 30-31, cf. 14*. 46 In PB the division is just as diﬃcult to understand, it has a blank before 45

26

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

Fig. 2: Esthetically pleasing layout of Qoh. 3:2-9 in LC.

every verseline from 3:2 to 3:9, rendering the Soph Pas¯ uq superﬂuous.

Paragraphing in a Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript

27

In BN the colometry is much more sober, with twice t[e in every colon and a blank between the cola which is also what the Masoretic accents suggest.47

Fig. 3: Layout of Qoh. 3:2-9 in BN.

It is interesting to note that the same colometric division is already found in ÌB , ÌS and, for most cola, ÌA (see Fig. 4 on the next page). As compared to LC one might argue that there are many pluses in BN, but in reality the colometry of BN is probably preferable over that of LC, BHS, BHQ and Dotan. Nobody disputes the necessity to use L as the master codex on which all editions of the Hebrew Bible should be based, but in our opinion that basic decision does not imply that also its spacing should be taken over uncritically. A manuscript like BN 80 provides a useful counterpoise.

47

Incidentally, the division of Qoh. 3:5b in BN conﬁrms our conviction that sometimes Zaqeph parvum must be taken as a divider, despite the preceding Munah.. Cf. Korpel 2001, 55, n. 14.

28

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

Fig. 4: Layout of Qoh. 3:2-9 in

ÌB .

Bibliography Allony 1963 – N. Allony, yrtyw rwzjmb wnlç dwqynh whzya, Beth Mikra 17 (1963), 135-144. Baer & Strack 1879 – S. Baer, H.L. Strack, Die Dikduke Ha-T e amim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher, Leipzig 1879. Beit-Ari´e et al. 1972-1986 – M. Beit-Ari´e et al., Manuscrits m´edi´evaux en caract`eres h´ebra¨ıques: portant des indications de date jusqu’` a 1540, 3 vols. Text and 3 vols. Plates, Paris 1972-1986. Blank 1931-2 – S.H. Blank, ‘A Hebrew Bible Manuscript in the Hebrew Union College Libary’, HUCA 8-9 (1931-32), 229-55. Chiesa 1978 – B. Chiesa, L’Antico Testamento ebraico secondo la tradizione palestinese, Torino 1978. Cohen 1983-84 – M. Cohen, twayxmw haydya >rçaAˆb jswn lç wnwjxn, Tarbiz 53 (1983-84), 255-72. De Moor 1963 – J.C. de Moor, ‘Handschriften van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel’, in: Eeuwfeest-almanak van het Corpus Studiosorum in Academia Campensi “Fides Quaerit Intellectum”, 66e jaargang, Kampen 1963, 142-8. De Moor 2000 – J.C. de Moor, ‘Micah 7:1-13: The Lament of a Disillusioned Prophet’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 149-96. De Moor 2002 – J.C. de Moor, ‘Workshop on Micah 4:14–5:8’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (Pericope, 3), Assen 2002, 258-75. De Moor 2005 – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Structure of Micah 6 in the Light of Ancient Delimitations’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2005, 78-113. Dietrich 1968 – M. Dietrich, Neue pal¨ astinisch punktierte Bibelfragmente ver¨ oﬀentlicht und auf Text und Punktation hin untersucht (Massorah, 2/1), Leiden 1968. D´ıez Macho 1956 – A. D´ıez Macho, ‘ Un manuscrito protomasor´etico y nueva teor´ıa acerca de los llamados MSS. Ben Naftali’, EstB 15 (1956), 187-222.

30

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

D´ıez Macho 1963 – A. D´ıez Macho, ‘A New List of So-called “Ben Naftali” Manuscripts, Preceded by an Inquiry into the True Character of these Manuscripts’, in: D. Winton Thomas, W.D. McHardy (eds), Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to G.R. Driver, Oxford 1963, 16-52. D´ıez Macho 1970 – A. D´ıez Macho, ‘Cat´alogo de nuevas manuscritos pseudo-Ben Naftal´ı de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Cambridge’, Aug. 10 (1970), 213-40. D´ıez Macho 1971a – A. D´ıez Macho, Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia (StAnt, 5), Roma 1971. D´ıez Macho 1971b – A. D´ıez Macho, ‘La vocalizaci´on de los manuscritos palestinenses seg´ un E.J. Revell’, Aug. 11 (1971), 549-64. Dotan 2001 – A. Dotan(ed.), μybwtkw μyaybn hrwt: Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia Prepared according to the Vocalization, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex, Peabody 2001. Ginsburg 1880 – C.D. Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts, London 1880. Ginsburg 1897 – C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoreticocritical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, London 1897 (repr. New York 1966). Ginsburg 1911 – C.D. Ginsburg, μynrja μyabn / Prophetae Posteriores, Londinii 1911. Hallo 1962 – W.W. Hallo, ‘New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature’, IEJ 12 (1962), 69-85. Hallo 1996 – W.W. Hallo, Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions, Leiden 1996. Hasel 1974 – G.F. Hasel, (review of Dietrich 1968), BiOr 31 (1974), 115-8. Hubman & Oesch 1983 – F.D. Hubmann, J.M. Oesch, ‘Graz UB 35. 680: Ein Pseudo Ben Naftali (PsBN) Fragment’, in: I. Seybold (ed.), Meqor Hajjim: Fs G. Molin, Graz 1983, 171-85. Kahle 1927 – P. (E.) Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, Bd. 1, Stuttgart 1927 (repr. Hildesheim 1967).

Paragraphing in a Palestinian-Tiberian MS – Bibliography

31

Kahle 1930 – P. (E.) Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, Bd. 2, Stuttgart 1930 (repr. Hildesheim 1967) Kahle 1947 – P. (E.) Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Schweich Lectures 1941), London 1947. Kahle 1959 – P.E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 2 1959. Kasher 1985 – R. Kasher, arqmh tqwljl htqyzb >qwsp [xmab aqsyp lawmç rpsl μyyrb[ dyAybtk rwal μyqwspl, Textus 12 (1985), 32*-55*. Korpel 1998 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Exegesis in the Work of Ilimilku of Ugarit’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel: Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of The Society for Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi¨e, Held at Oxford, 1997 (OTS,40), Leiden 1998, 86-111. Korpel 2001 – M.C.A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pericope, 2), Assen 2001. Korpel 2004 – M.C.A. Korpel, (review of: Aron Dotan (ed.), Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia: Prepared according to the Vocalization, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex ), in: Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2004). Korpel 2005 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Unit Delimitation in Ugaritic Cultic Texts and Some Babylonian and Hebrew Parallels’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2005,141-60. Korpel 2007 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘The Demarcation of Hymns and Prayers in the Prophets (2)’, in: B. Becking, H.G.L. Peels (eds), Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi¨e, Apeldoorn August 2006 (OTS, 55), Leiden 2007 (forthcoming), 141-57. Korpel & De Moor 1998 – M.C. Korpel, J.C. de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55 (OTS, 41), Leiden 1998. Korpel & Oesch 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000.

32

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

Korpel & Oesch 2005 – M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets (Pericope, 5), Assen 2005, Langlamet 1985 – F. Langlamet, ‘ “Le Seigneur dit `a Mo¨ıse . . . ” – Une cl´e de lecture des divisions massor´etiques”, in: M´elanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT, 215), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985, 255-74. Lieberman 1990 – S.J. Lieberman, ‘Canonical and Oﬃcial Cuneiform Texts: Towards and Understanding of Assurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collection’, in: T. Abusch et al. (eds.), Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, Atlanta 1990, 305-36. Lipschuetz 1962 – L. Lipschuetz, ˆb ˆyml[mla ˆyb ydla πlk%la batk yltpn ˆbw rça, Textus 2 (1962), 1*-58*. Morag 1959 – S. Morag, ‘The Vocalisation of the Codex Reuchlinianus: Is the “Pre-Masoretic” Bible Pre-Masoretic?’, JSS 4 (1959), 216-37. Morag 1968 – S. Morag, dwqyn, tyarqm hydpwlqyxna, vol. 5, Jerusalem 1968, 837-57. Murtonen 1958 – A. Murtonen, Materials for a Non-Masoretic Hebrew Grammar, vol. 1: Liturgical Texts and Psalm Fragments Provided with the So-called Palestinian Punctuation, Helsinki 1958. Oesch 1979 – J.M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer u ¨berlieferten Gliederung im hebr¨ aischen Text des Alten Testaments (OBO, 27), Freiburg 1979. Oesch 2003 – J.M. Oesch, ‘Skizze einer formalen Gliederungshermeneutiek der Sifre Tora’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature (Pericope, 4), Assen 2003, 162-97. Olley 1998 – J.W. Olley, ‘Texts Have Paragraphs Too – A Plea for Inclusion in Critical Editions’, Textus 19 (1998), 111-25. P´erez Castro 1955 – F. P´erez Castro, ‘Corrgido y correcto: El Ms, B19a (Leningrado) frente al Ms. Or. 4445 (Londres) y al C´odice de los Profetas de El Cairo’, Sef. 15 (1955). 3-30.

Paragraphing in a Palestinian-Tiberian MS – Bibliography

33

¨ Prijs 1957 – J. Prijs, ‘Uber Ben Naftali-Handschiften und ihre pal¨aograﬁschen Besonderheiten’, ZAW 69 (1957), 171-84. Revell 1970 – E.J. Revell, ‘Studies in Palestinian Vocalization of Hebrew’, in: J.W. Wevers, D.B. Redford (eds), Essays on the Ancient Semitic World, Toronta 1970, 51-100. Revell 1978 – E.J. Revell, Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents (MasSt, 4), Missoula 1978. Schenker et al. 2004 – A. Schenker et al. (eds), Biblia Hebraica quinta editione cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato, fasc. 18: General Introduction and Megilloth, Stuttgart 2004. Sperber 1959 – A. Sperber, Codices palatini, vol. 2: The Parma Bible, Part 2, Copenhagen 1959. Steck 1998 – O.H. Steck, Die erste Jesajarolle von Qumran (1QIsa ): Schreibweise als Leseanleitung f¨ ur ein Prophetenbuch (SBS, 173/ 1-2), 2 vols, Stuttgart 1998. Tertel 1994 – H.J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (BZAW, 221), Berlin 1994. Tigay 1982 – J.H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Philadelphia 1982. Tov 1998 – E. Tov, ‘Sense Divisions in the Qumran Texts, the Masoretic Text, and Ancient Translations of the Bible’, in: J. Kraˇsovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium on the Interpretation of the Bible (JSOT.S, 289), Sheﬃeld 1998, 121-46. Tov 2000 – E. Tov, ‘The Background of the Sense Divisions in the Biblical Texts’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 312-50. Tov 2004 – E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reﬂected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (TDJ, 54), Leiden 2004. Van den Berg 1999 – E. van den Berg, Beelden van Joas: Narratieve, stilistische en masoretische structuren als sleutels tot de interpretatie van 2 Kon 11-12 en 2 Kron 22:10–24:27, Zwolle 1999.

34

J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel

Van der Heide 1974 – A. van der Heide, ‘A Biblical Fragment with Palestinian-Tiberian (“Pseudo-Ben Naftali”) Punctuation in the Leyden University Library (Hebr. 259-I)’, Mus´eon 87 (1974), 41521 (+ 2 Plates and 2 pages of Transliteration). (The author kindly provided us with a leaﬂet of corrections that was inserted in the next issue of Mus´eon).

Van der Toorn 2007 – K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, London 2007. Weisberg 1994 – D.B. Weisberg, ‘Break in the Middle of the Verse: Some Observations on a Masoretic Feature’, in: J.C. Reeves, J. Kampen (eds), Pursuing the Text (Fs B.Z Wacholder; JSOT.S, 184), Sheﬃeld 1994, 34-45. Yalon 1955 – H. Yalon, (Heb. 8o 2238 μylçwry y k) ˚l jlç tçrp, QS 30 (1955), 257-63. Zotenberg 1866 – H. Zotenberg, Catalogues des manuscrits h´ebreux et samaritains de la Biblioth`eque Imp´eriale, Paris 1866.

The Leviticus and Joshua Codex from the Schøyen Collection A Closer Look at the Text Divisions Kristin De Troyer Claremont – USA

In this contribution, I will ﬁrst brieﬂy describe the two codices.1 Next, I will describe the sort of divisions that I see in the Joshua and Leviticus Codices of the Schøyen collection. Then, I will reﬂect on the limited divisions found in these codices by putting them back into their historical and textual history.

1 Some Data Regarding the Joshua and Leviticus Codex of the Schøyen Collection In December 1998, Mr. Martin Schøyen from Oslo, Norway, bought two important Greek papyri. Both papyri have been part of a codex, probably of two diﬀerent codices: MS 2648 and MS 2649. The scribe is the same for Joshua and Leviticus. The papyri probably come from the Oxyrhynchus area, Egypt. Manuscript 2648 has six leaves, written recto and verso, hence twelve pages. It contains part of the Biblical Greek book of Joshua, namely 9:27 to 11:3. The second papyrus has eight leaves, also written recto and verso, hence sixteen pages. It contains parts of the following chapters of Leviticus: 10, 11, 23 and 25. The leaves of both codices were already separated from one another before the process of decomposition started. Much of the text is readable; some parts, though, better than others. The leaves of Joshua are ca. 20 cm (8 inches) high and ca. 11 cm (4.5 inches) wide. The ink is black. However, in places where the scribe changed calamus and ink, it is brown (see 10:34). The text is written in one column, leaving margins on all the sides of the page. A column, or in other words, the inscribed surface, measures ca. 15.5 cm (6.25 inches) high and ca. 8.5 to 9 cm (3.5 inches) wide. Each page contains between 19 and 23 lines, and has between 17-18 1

See also De Troyer 2005, 79-145 + Plates XVI-XXVII. Ead. (forthcoming).

36

K. De Troyer

and 32 characters per line. With regard to Leviticus, the leaves are ca. 21 cm (8.25 inches) high and ca. 10.5 cm (4.25 inches) wide. The text is written in one column, leaving margins on all the sides of the page. A column, or in other words, the inscribed surface, measures ca. 15.5 cm (6.125 inches) high and ca. 7 to 8.3 cm (3 inches) wide. Each page contains between 21 and 24 lines, and has between 16 and 23 characters per line. The text is written in irregular lines. The distance between the lines as well as the length of the lines is irregular. It looks like the manuscripts were not ruled horizontally. More speciﬁcally with regard to Joshua, the vertical ruling, on leaf 2 recto, seems to be a left margin. There might be a right rule on leaf 2 verso, since the last letter of the ﬁrst line and the last letter of the last line can be aligned; the other lines, though, are not closely aligned. Leaves 5 and 6, both recto and verso, do not seem to follow a right or left alignment. The scribe sometimes cramped a couple of letters onto the line, so he or she seems to have had a minimal idea of a right margin (see also below 3.4.2.). The words, however, are often split between the lines. The manuscript pages are numbered. The numbers, however, are not always preserved. On leaf 2 recto one can read mq with a line on top of it, hence the numeral mq, indicating 49; on leaf 2 verso, n, indicating 50; on leaf 5 recto, ne, indicating 55; and, ﬁnally, on leaf 5 verso, ns, indicating 56. The Leviticus papyrus also displays the irregular lines and distances. Moreover, the Leviticus papyrus also contains two page numbers: xg, indicating 63 and xd indicating 64. Note, however that there are no supralinear strokes on the page numbers of the Leviticus codex. After calculation of the length of the text of the Joshua papyrus, I conclude that the codex started with the book of Joshua. Most probably the codex was a Joshua codex.2 The entire codex might have been ca. 72 pages. The entire Leviticus codex on the other hand must have been ca. 73 leaves, ca. 146 pages long. The script of the Leviticus papyrus is similar to the one of the Joshua papyrus. It is large and with some round curved letters. 2

This is important, for we do not have evidence of codices that start with or only contain Joshua. In most codices, Joshua is part of a Hexateuch or Octateuch. With thanks to Detlef Fraenkel.

The Leviticus and Joshua Codex from the Schøyen Collection 37 It bears some similarity to the handwriting of the Chester Beatty papyri, esp. Chester Beatty VI, Numbers and Chester Beatty 9-10, esp. 967. Its handwriting is very readable. The paleographer and papyrologists G. Cavallo and R. Pintaudi have dated both papyri to the end of the second century ce and the beginning of the third century ce.

2 Text Divisions When preparing the Joshua manuscript for publication, I inserted the following paragraph about text divisions: It is a running text. There are no paragraph or section breaks. There are no indentations, nor letters protruding into the margins. On p. n", the scribe ﬁlls out the line by using a diple (see 10.36). Regarding word division: there is some word division, but it is not complete. Sometimes the scribe very clearly divides the words (see e.g. p. 2 verso lines 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16) and sometimes there is hardly any word division (see e.g. p. 5 recto lines 9 and 10). There are no small sense units. With regard to the often found special layout of poetical units, I noted: ‘Although 10.12b-13 is a poetical text, there is no special lay out in this manuscript.’ (De Troyer 2005). With this in mind, I turned to the Leviticus Codex. I expected to ﬁnd little or no division markers. However, I noted that the scribe occasionally used double dots, also called dicola. p. 2, recto, line 23: two dots p. 6, recto, line 13: two dots In this context, I paid close attention to accents, breathing marks and diaereses. With regard to breathing marks: In the Joshua codex, there was the beginning of breathing marks. The scribe would use on top of the letter an old fashion breathing mark, namely a short vertical line, in whose middle a horizontal stroke was added. See, for instance, p.1, recto, line 5: ‚on. In Joshua, the breathing mark was found on many, though not all words that started with a vowel and are normally pronounced with a rough breathing.

38

K. De Troyer

The scribe of the Leviticus codex also used diaereses. In Greek, ‘a diaeresis is occasionally placed on the second of two vowels to show that they do not form a diphthong but are to be pronounced separately.’3 See for instance, on p. 1, recto, line 7 and line 10: mw´sh". The diaeresis, however, is not entirely as it ought to be; it looks more like a dot and a short stroke. Moreover, on p. 1, recto, line 11, the scribe uses a diaeresis on the upsilon of ´iou", where one would expect a breathing mark. See also p. 1, recto, line 18, with ina. On p. 2, recto, line 23, there is on top of the word umein, more precisely on the upsilon, a beginning of what could have been a horizontal stroke and a dot. I was wondering whether or not the scribe wanted to originally write a breathing mark, but then went back to the usual diaeresis on the upsilon of umein. The least one can say is that there is some confusion in the papyrus. As I said earlier, in the Leviticus papyrus, on p. 2, recto, line 23, after umein, there is a double dot (see Fig. 1). In Greek, dicola started to appear in Hellenistic times. Double dots (= dicola) started to be used in esp. Aramaic texts to indicate the end of a verse (and in some cases half verses), see for instance, the Qumran Targum on Leviticus (4Q156). The double dot on p. 2, recto, line 23 corresponds with the end of a verse (namely Lev. 11:20). The double dot on p. 6, recto, line 13 (corresponding to Lev. 12:2), however, does neither correspond with the end of a verse, nor with the half of a verse, but stands in a phrase. Following the double dot on p. 2, recto, line 23, there is a space of about three characters. Now, that is the only place in the manuscript where there is a clear text division. This section in the text corresponds with Lev. 11:20-21. The space corresponds precisely with the break between 11:20 and 11:21. In the critical edition, there is precisely at that point also a text division. I then set out to ﬁnd out whether other indications of space as they were printed in the text critical edition of Leviticus were present in the Schøyen papyrus. So, I made a list of all the instances where the edition of the Old Greek text of Leviticus had inserted spaces in the text. Of course, I only looked at the sections in the edition where there was a parallel text in the papyrus. 3

Wenham 1982, 22.

The Leviticus and Joshua Codex from the Schøyen Collection 39

Fig. 1: The Schøyen Collection MS 2649, Oslo – London, folio 2 (obv.): Leviticus 11:12-26

40

K. De Troyer

This is the result:4 • a space after 10:15: no space, however in the papyrus • a space after 11:12: not visible in the papyrus • a space after 11:20: space in the papyrus • a space after 11:28: no space apart from the word division in the papyrus • a space after 11:38: in the papyrus there is a huge nun written by the scribe, a nun that reaches to the right margin of the inscribed surface – this indicates in my opinion that the scribe did not want to have a space after the letter • a space after 11:45: no space in the papyrus • a space after 12:8: no space in the papyrus • a space after 23:22: not visible • a space after 23:25: not visible. A short conclusion so far would be that the scribe did not use text divisions. Only in one instance did the scribe truly insert a space indicating text division, namely between 11:20 and 11:21. As I said earlier, this is precisely the point where the edition does have a space. A closer look at the papyrus, however, reveals why there is a space between 11:20 and 11:21. According to me, the papyrus was in that precise space very diﬃcult to write on, and therefore, the scribe left some empty space. This being the case, there is no division, apart from word division, in the two Schøyen papyri. Now, how does this information ﬁt within the information that we have on papyri from that age? 4 I would like to thank Mr. Martin Schøyen and Ms Elizabeth Gano Sørenssen, librarian of the Schøyen Collection, for allowing me to publish MS 2649, folio 2, obverse. For some pictures from the manuscripts in the Schøyen collection, see http://www.schoyencollection.com/papyri.htm.

The Leviticus and Joshua Codex from the Schøyen Collection 41

3 Text Division in Papyri From the Late Second and Early Third Century CE 5 As Tov states: ‘the table (, which) is rather exhaustive’6 and thus can be used for comparison with the Schøyen papyri – the information on the Joshua papyrus was already included in this list. I focused on the texts that stem from the third century ce or earlier. There are texts that have both indications of section units and paragraphos signs: • 4QLXXLeva • P. Fouad 266b • 4QpapLXX-Levb of Lev 2-5 • 8HevXIIgr (hand A) • P. Oxy 65.4443 of Esther • P. Chester Beatty VI (963) • P. Rendel Harris 166 • P. W (Freer) of the Minor Prophets • P. Chester Beatty V (962) These are texts that only have indications of section units: • P. Fouad 266a • 8HevXIIgr (hand B) • P. Baden 56b (P. Heidelberg 8) • P. Oxy 4.656 • P. Oxy 65.4442 5 According to the list of Emanuel Tov on ‘Scribal Features of Early Witnesses of Greek Scripture’, Tov 2004, 303-15. 6 Tov 2004, 303. Note that the large codices A, B, S, and G were excluded from the analysis.

42

K. De Troyer • P. Scheide + P. Chester Beatty IX (967) • P. Chester Beatty X (967) • P. Oxy 7.1007 • P. Berlin 17213 • P. Berlin 11778

The following are texts that only have paragraphos signs: • P. Berlin 17212 • P. Bodmer XXIV (hand A and B) • P. Berlin Fol. 66 I/II Tov notes that P. Chester Beatty VI (963) uses a dicolon before direct speech in Jer 4:31.7 There are also dicola in the following already listed documents: P. Oxy 65.4442, P. W (Freer) of the Minor Prophets. Moreover, bicola are used to indicate verse division in P. Merton 2 = P. Chester Beatty VII. Tov notes that in the early Greek sources, from the second century ce onwards, the dicola also start to be in use for the indication of the end of the verses. He also notes that this tradition must have been unnatural, for there are in the fourth century dicola used after groups of words, instead of after half or a full verse.8 After analyzing all the practices, in his section on section divisions in the ancient translations and the Samaritan Pentatuch,9 Tov makes the following distinctions, that are also historical distinctions: • In stage one, some early witnesses reﬂect some, most, or all of the section divisions of the Hebrew texts from which the Greek translations were made. • In stage two, several later manuscripts of the Greek Scripture, which were copied by Christian copyists, moved away from the Hebrew tradition, and thus, reﬂect fewer content division than the original. 7

Tov 2004, 305. Tov 2004, 139. 9 Tov 2004, 159-63. 8

The Leviticus and Joshua Codex from the Schøyen Collection 43 • Finally, in stage three, large sense divisions were not indicated at all. Moreover, two new systems were added to indicate sense division: paragraphoi and ekthesis.

4 Conclusion With regard to the Joshua and the Leviticus papyrus, I can state with certain ty that there is no text division visible in the documents. Although the paleographers have put the Schøyen papyri close to Chester Beatty VI, IX, and X, which belong to the second group in the list of Tov, the two documents seem to witness to the third stage in the history of the text divisions, albeit without the paragraphoi and ektheses. The fact that the two papyri do not have paragraph signs and ektheses might, however, push them back into the second group. The only thing that we can say for certain is that the Joshua and Leviticus papyri of the Schøyen Collection are truly ‘running texts.’10

Bibliography De Troyer 2005 – K. De Troyer, Joshua (Papyri Graecae Schøyen, PSchøyen I, ed. Rosario Pintaudi; PapyFlor, 35/ManSC, 5), Firenze 2005. De Troyer (forthcoming) – K. De Troyer, Leviticus (Papyri Graecae Schøyen, PSchøyen II, ed. Rosario Pintaudi; PapyFlor/ManSC), Firenze (forthcoming). Tov 2004 – E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reﬂected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (StTDJ, 54), Leiden 2004. Wenham 1982 – J.W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge 1982 (1 1965). 10

De Troyer 2005, 79-145 + Plates XVI-XXVII, esp. p. 90.

The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation on Reading and Use of Greek Manuscripts Stanley E. Porter Hamilton, ON – Canada

1 Introduction It is well known that the reading of Scripture was prominent in Christian worship from the earliest times. The book of Acts depicts events as occurring according to the fulﬁllment of Scripture (1:16; 8:35) and Paul sees Scripture as fulﬁlled in the events surrounding the advent of Christ (e.g. Rom. 4:3; 10:11; Gal. 3:8; 4:30). As 1 Cor. 14:26 says, at the earliest worship ceremonies, Christians were instructed to be engaged in a variety of things, including bringing a lesson from the Scriptures. This tradition has continued in most Christian churches, with many churches following a patterned series of readings. In fact, we know that, at some period, there developed an entire set of manuscripts designed to guide such reading, called lectionaries. The lectionaries have been a neglected area of New Testament textual criticism, with several scholars attempting by ﬁt and start to include more information regarding lectionaries in the discussion, as well as in the textual apparatus.1 By the eighth century, the use of fairly well established lectionary sections was in place, and these are seen in at least two types of manuscripts. The ﬁrst are lectionaries themselves, that is, noncontinuous text manuscripts that were speciﬁcally created with lectionary use in mind. They often contain lectionary incipits to introduce the individual pericopes and make them readable in context, as well as other markers and indications, including an increasingly sophisticated and developed ekphonetic notational system to aid in reading. These lectionaries are found in Greek and other languages, such as Latin and Syriac. There are a number of these manuscripts, but much more work needs to be done on them to explore their 1 See Osburn 1995, on whom I rely for basic information; cf. also Colwell 1932/1969; Metzger 1969.

The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation

45

relationship to the major text types and the lectionary tradition itself. The second type of manuscript is a continuous text manuscript, that is, a biblical manuscript, that has been appropriated for lectional use. Such a manuscript may well have lectionary headings and other markings added later by a diﬀerent scribe, as well as the addition of later ekphonetic markings to aid in reading. One particularly interesting manuscript in this regard is Gregory-Aland 0105 (ANB Suppl. Gr. 121), a ninth-century biblical manuscript of eight pages that has been marked to indicate lectional use by the addition of headings and Eusebian numbers (see Porter & Porter forthcoming, no. 40). However, only some of the pericopes have been marked, not all of them. One of the lectionary units conforms to a standard lectional unit (Jn 7:14-30),2 while the other does not. In other words, this manuscript – like so many others – exhibits its own distinct liturgical characteristics, even at such a late date. The manuscript was probably written in the tenth century, but some of the other markings may well have been added much later. The period before the sixth century still remains somewhat of a mystery regarding lectionary matters, however. Although we know that early Christian writers such as Origen, and perhaps as early as Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, made use of speciﬁc lections, the earliest lectionaries do not seem to follow any consistent system of pericopes (see Osburn 1995, 63). This paper wishes to explore a dimension that is diﬃcult to reconstruct and hence has not ﬁgured as prominently in recent discussion as have some others. The various units delimited in one manuscript are examined to try to determine how this delimitation inﬂuenced the way in which this manuscript (and by implication, others) was shaped for reading, and as a consequence how various pericopes were framed in order to be interpreted. I want to concentrate on one relatively early but neglected manuscript to see if we can determine how unit delimitation inﬂuenced structuring and hence reading and use of this manuscript. Findings such as these may say not only something about how this manuscript was used, but also about the inﬂuence that it had on concurrent and subsequent textual use – I cannot explore all of these issues here. 2 See Scrivener 1894, I, 80-85. I will use Scrivener’s synaxarion and eclogadion of the Gospels and Apostolos as a point of comparison.

46

Stanley E. Porter

2 A Fifth-Century Lectionary The manuscript that I wish to deal with is an early Greek lectionary manuscript (l 1043; P.Vindob. Gr. 2324) (see Porter & Porter forthcoming, no. 58). In its fragmentary form, it now consists of ten pages. The hand of this manuscript is a very consistent and wellformed biblical majuscule, resembling the writing of Codex Alexandrinus (A, ﬁfth century). The date assigned to this fragment is the ﬁfth century, making it one of the very earliest of those manuscripts classiﬁed as lectionaries. The large pages are 32 cm. x 39 cm. each, with two columns of Greek text per page. The average line length is 10-12 characters, with 35 lines per column. The text clearly is not all continuous – some pages either begin or end in the middle of a unit, and units begin or end in the beginning of a column. The text is divided into eleven units: Mt. 3:7-17, 4:23–5:12, 7:13-20, 10:37-42, 9:35; Mk 6:18-29; Lk. 2:1-20, 11:27-32, 24:36-38; Jn 20:1-18, 20:2427. Thus, for example, one page begins in the midst of the unit with Mt. 3:7-17. This unit continues on both columns of this page and halfway down the ﬁrst column of the next page, before the next unit, with Mt. 4:23–5:12, begins. This unit completes this page and goes to the next, where it ends near the top of the second column. The manuscript proceeds in this fashion throughout. The size of the lectionary units, and their approximate correlation with later lectional units, indicates that this is a lectionary, and not simply a ﬂorilegium. There are several ways that units are delimited in this manuscript. Major lectionary units or pericopes are indicated by two lines of space before and after the unit, and the opening of the pericope with ekthesis, a larger letter and a coronis. Units within these major pericopes are indicated by ekthesis usually written with an initial larger letter, often in conjunction with the use of a distinct line or paragraphos (see below on the use of a coronis). A short line is used to end a major or a minor unit, and various types of punctuation are used at the end of a line, whether short or not and whether at the end of a major or minor unit.3 There are other marks of punctuation on 3

Discussions of some of these issues are found in Finegan 1974, 33. Earlier discussion is found in Kenyon 1899, 27; Gardthausen 1911/1913, II, 402-3. Cf. also Metzger 1981, 40-2; Turner 1987, 8-9; Tov 2000; Olley 2002; Porter 2005.

The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation

47

the manuscript (e.g. raised dots to end sentences within sub-units), as well as a few other diacritical marks. However, these major delimitation markers constitute the vast majority of the markings of the manuscript, including especially places where several marks are used together. I will treat each of the eleven major units in turn, and discuss the major and minor unit delimitation and its potential exegetical and lectional signiﬁcance. The emphasis will be upon how the elements of unit delimitation as noted above shaped the structure of the pericopes and hence inﬂuenced the reader who would have picked up this manuscript for liturgical use.

2.1

Matthew 3:7-17

The ﬁrst page of the manuscript begins in the midst of this unit, so it is diﬃcult to determine the exact parameters of the pericope. It clearly does end at Mt. 3:17, with two lines of space and a short ﬁnal line with a concluding double dot of punctuation. It begins in the middle of Mt. 3:7, so almost assuredly the pericope began earlier. Regardless of where it began, it does not seem to conform to any of the standard lections. In fact, even at this size it would be one of the larger lectional units. It may have begun at the beginning of v. 7, or, like so many of the lections, it may have begun at the beginning of the chapter, at 3:1. An argument could be made for either, since all of Matthew 3 is concerned with John the Baptist, but v. 7 begins the preaching of John that leads to the baptism of Jesus. Within this pericope, there are two examples of unit delimitation by ekthesis, one between vv. 10 and 11 and the other between vv. 12 and 13. The ekthesis between vv. 10 and 11 is apparently reinforced by a paragraphos, the only one used in this pericope. The ﬁrst sub-unit is interesting in that it has continuous text from line to line. Mt. 3:10 concludes with a raised dot after balletai, a single space, and then the egw of Mt. 3:11 all on one line. There is a paragraphos between the lines, and then the next line begins with ekthetic men. The second sub-unit has asbestw and a concluding double dot of punctuation on one line, and then ekthetic tote and a coronis on the next. This is the only internally used coronis in the extant portion of this manuscript. The eﬀect of these two markers is to divide the unit into three paragraphs, which correlate

48

Stanley E. Porter

with the ancient paragraph divisions indicated in the Nestle-Aland text.4 This supports the notion that the pericope began with either Mt. 3:7, another paragraph unit, or 3:1. The modern printed text does not indicate any diﬀerence between the paragraph divisions at vv. 11 and 13, but this lectionary text clearly does. The ﬁrst has minor punctuation, no short line, but both a paragraphos and ekthesis, but the second has major punctuation, a short line, ekthesis and the unique coronis. My initial impression is that the paragraphos is designed to reinforce this as perhaps a tertiary unit division at v. 11, whereas there is a clear secondary unit division at v. 13 reinforced by the coronis. This corresponds with the content, in which the pericope (as we have it) begins with the general teaching of John, then at v. 11 turns to his message addressed to Jesus, before at v. 13 turning to Jesus himself – creating a form of climactic progression. Listeners would not have necessarily seen or known of the unit markers, but the reader may well have used them to guide reading, possibly indicating the units by vocal production or taking pause at the break, in order to indicate something of the signiﬁcance to come.

2.2

Matthew 4:23–5:12

This pericope is close in length to the one used on the third day of the ﬁrst week of Pentecost (Mt. 4:25-5:11). This pericope includes a fuller introduction to the teaching, preaching and healing of Jesus, while the standard lection simply provides the immediate context for the Sermon on the Mount. The standard lection ends with the last beatitude, while this lectionary includes another verse, before there is a deﬁnite shift within the sermon to the sayings on salt and light. The pericope is marked by ekthesis with a larger letter and a coronis at the beginning, and a short line followed by double punctuation at the close. The lectionary does not change the wording at the beginning of the unit to make the sense clearer. It reads: ‘and he was going around in the whole of Galilee, teaching . . . ’ This follows Codex Vaticanus, whereas most of the major early codexes 4

This assumes that the Nestle-Aland text reﬂects these divisions, per their indication in NA26 p. 44* (Aland et al. 1979).

The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation

49

include reference to Jesus to make clear who was going about Galilee.5 This would have made it clearer in the lectionary who the subject of the verb was, but it is not included here. This perhaps indicates that at this stage, lectionaries – or at least certain ones such as this one – were less inclined to provide an incipit or introduction to the pericope to ease reading. If this is true, then it would indicate that lectionaries should not be too readily dismissed for their use in textual criticism, since especially early ones may be faithful transmitters of their biblical texts, and utilized in textual criticism.6 This lectionary supports the reading in Vaticanus and is probably closest to the original. The text-critical history indicates that explicit reference to Jesus was added in some manuscript traditions, quite possibly for liturgical/lectionary reasons, and then retained in the tradition. The issue then became the placement of the noun, not whether it belonged. Within the pericope, there are ten sub-units delimited. The divisions occur between: Mt. 4:25 and 5:1, with a short line with double punctuation and then ekthesis with a larger letter and a paragraphos; 5:2 and 3, with a short line and a raised dot of punctuation and then ekthesis with a larger letter and a paragraphos; 5:3 and 4, with a full-length line (although it is diﬃcult to know if a short line would have been used if the words did not ﬁll the line; note the use of a nomen sacrum for the ﬁnal word) and no punctuation, then ekthesis with a larger letter and paragraphos; 5:4 and 5, with a short line with no punctuation, and then ekthesis with a larger letter and paragraphos; 5:5 and 6, with a short line and no punctuation and then ekthesis with a larger letter and paragraphos; 5:6 and 7, with a short line and raised dot of punctuation and then ekthesis with a larger letter and paragraphos; 5:7 and 8, with a fulllength line and no punctuation and then ekthesis with a larger letter and paragraphos; 5:8 and 9, with a short line and raised dot and then ekthesis with a larger letter and paragraphos; 5:9 and 10, with a full-length line with a raised dot of punctuation and then ekthesis 5 This lectionary manuscript reads ejn o{lh th' Galilaiva with B, instead of oJ ΔIhsou'" ejn th' Galilaiva with a* (delete o{lh) C*, oJ ΔIhsou'" o{lhn th;n Galilaivan with a1 D f 1 33 892 1424 l844 l2211, or o{lhn th;n Galilaivan oJ ΔIhsou'" with W f 13 Majority text. 6 On the issue of the use of the lectionaries in textual criticism, see Osburn 1995, 63-64.

50

Stanley E. Porter

with a larger letter and paragraphos; 5:10 and 11, with a short line with raised dot of punctuation (note that this verse also concludes with a nomen sacrum) and then ekthesis with a larger letter and a paragraphos. Apart from the ﬁrst sub-unit, all of the sub-units delimited are the beatitudes. The ﬁrst sub-unit begins the new chapter, and it is marked by especially the major punctuation mark, the double dot. Each beatitude begins a new line with ekthesis and a paragraphos. The only diﬀerence is whether the preceding line is short or not and whether it has a raised dot of punctuation, indicating a minor break. I cannot see any consistent pattern that would indicate why some lines use punctuation or not, although it is clear that a short line was intended, except if there just happened to be enough letters to ﬁll a line. There is no instance of running one beatitude into another. In all cases but two (5:4 and 5:7) there is some clear indication of a minor (tertiary?) break. The result of this unit delimitation is that a full context for the Sermon on the Mount is created through the demarcation of the pericope, and then a secondary break is created before the sermon itself begins (at 5:1), with perhaps tertiary breaks used to divide up the beatitudes.

2.3

Matthew 7:13-20

This pericope approximates the second lection used for the second day of the second week of Pentecost (Mt. 7:9-14; the ﬁrst reading is Mt. 6:31-34). The lectionary in fact more closely corresponds to the ancient paragraph divisions (v. 13, but not v. 9; although both v. 14 and v. 20 do also) than the standard lectionary unit. The lectionary also provides a more concise and focused episode, focusing entirely on the notion of entering the kingdom. The pericope is indicated by ekthesis, a larger initial letter and a coronis at the opening of the unit, and three lines of space after the last line, which ﬁlls the entire line and does not have any ﬁnal punctuation. Within the pericope there is only one sub-unit delimitation. This marks a break between 7:14 and 15, but it does so by a raised dot of punctuation after the last word of v. 14, no space and then the ﬁrst word of v. 15, with the following line ekthetic with a

The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation

51

larger ﬁrst letter. This letter is the delta of the conjunction de.7 This corresponds with the ancient paragraph division. Within this major unit on the kingdom, there is a break at v. 15 before the words regarding false prophets.

2.4

Matthew 10:37-42

Matthew 10:37-38 is part of a reading for the ﬁrst Sunday of all saints consisting of Mt. 10:32-33, 37-38 and 19:27-30, but is also roughly equivalent to the reading for the seventh day of the seventh week of Pentecost (10:37-11:1). Mt. 10:37 is an ancient paragraph division, as are 11:1 and 2. The pericope begins with ekthesis and a larger letter with coronis, and ends with apparently a short line (and presumably a double dot), although the parchment is damaged. Within this pericope, there are two sub-unit delimitations, one between 10:37 and 38 and the other between 10:38 and 39. The division between vv. 37 and 38 has the last word of v. 37, a raised dot of punctuation and a space, and then the beginning of v. 38, with the next line beginning with what is actually the fourth word of v. 38 written ekthetically, lambanei. Similarly, the division between vv. 38 and 39 has the last word of v. 38 followed by a raised dot of punctuation, but no space, and then three letters, oeu, with the next line beginning in the middle of the word with rwn (the completion of eurwn) written ekthetically with a larger letter and a paragraphos. These two markers do not correspond to ancient paragraph breaks. This lectionary does not have a break at v. 40, where one might expect it. The only way that I can account for these tertiary breaks is that the lectionary is dividing vv. 37, 38 and 39ﬀ. on the basis of their grammatical structure. Verse 37 uses the articular participle construction (‘the one loving . . . ’), but v. 38 uses the relative clause (‘whoever . . . ’), while vv. 39-41 return to the articular participle construction. If this is the case, then the unit markers indicate to the reader these shifts in grammatical structure, and possibly with them some shifts in emphasis.8 7

This lectionary manuscript has de with C L W Q 0281 f 1,13 33 Majority text, while there is no conjunction in a B 0250 565 and 1424. This is probably a later addition for syntactical clarity, but this lectionary manuscript becomes one of the two earliest witnesses to this reading. 8 Without checking the commentaries, I am sure that one of them somewhere

52

2.5

Stanley E. Porter

Matthew 9:35

There is only one line at the bottom of the second column of the page with Mt. 9:35, but no further manuscript pages that continue this unit. The lection for the second day of the third week of Pentecost includes Mt. 9:36-10:8, so perhaps this was the beginning of a roughly equivalent lection. Both reﬂect ancient paragraphs. This line begins with ekthesis and a larger letter, with coronis, so it clearly is meant as the beginning of a pericope unit.

2.6

Mark 6:18-29

This pericope begins in the middle of a unit, but does not correspond to any of the standard lections. The unit may have begun at Mk 6:17, or possibly better v. 14, which is the beginning of the episode of John the Baptist’s being beheaded by Herod. The pericope ends with a short line and a double dot of punctuation. Within the pericope there is one sub-unit delimitation, between vv. 20 and 21. Verse 20 completes its last word and has a raised dot of punctuation, followed by a space equivalent to about three letters, before beginning v. 21 with the ﬁrst word. The next line has a paragraphos and ekthetic larger ﬁrst letter for genomenhs. This minor sub-unit delimitation marks the beginning of the speciﬁc events that lead up to John the Baptist’s death. There are no other sub-units within this pericope, nor other ancient paragraphs indicated by Nestle-Aland.

2.7

Luke 2:1-20

It appears that neither Gospel birth account has a place in the standard lectionary readings. This passage begins with ekthesis and a larger letter, with coronis, and ends with a short line and double dot of punctuation. This pericope marks the birth of Jesus from the decree of Caesar to the shepherds returning to their ﬁelds, in other words, it is the complete Lukan birth account. What is noteworthy here, however, is that this lectionary does not have any sub-units indicated within the pericope, even though there are a number of ancient paragraphs indicated elsewhere (e.g. 2:8, 15). It is diﬃcult to calculate the eﬀect that this would have had on the reading of the manuscript, but it clearly indicates that the lectionary scribe will make the point that there is a diﬀerence, even if it is merely stylistic.

The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation

53

considered the passage – even though it is fairly lengthy – a unit for lectionary purposes.

2.8

Luke 11:27-32

This pericope roughly corresponds to the standard lection to be read on the second day of the second week of the new year (Lk. 11:2933). However, one notices that the lectionary includes the two verses where the woman blesses Jesus, but ends after the episode regarding the sign of Jonah, whereas the standard lection begins with the sign of Jonah but ends midway through the section on the lamp of the body, even though this is at an ancient paragraph marker. The pericope begins with ekthesis with a larger letter and a coronis, and ends with a short line with double punctuation. Within this pericope there is, as might be expected, one sub-unit delimitation, between vv. 28 and 29, the transition from the section on blessedness to the one on Jonah. Verse 28 completes its last word, has a raised dot of punctuation, and then has the ﬁrst two words of v. 29, with the next line having a paragraphos and ekthesis with a larger initial letter for the word oclwn. This pericope seems to be a small reading unit divided into two parts through a tertiary division, but united around the common theme of being blessed by keeping the word of God. The initial episode sets the stage for the example of Jonah, in which those who keep the word will be blessed and those who reject it will be condemned.

2.9

Luke 24:36-38

This pericope begins with ekthesis and a larger letter with coronis, but there is no continuation of the passage in the manuscript. According to Scrivener, there are eleven Gospel passages that were used in turn on Sundays at Matins, beginning with All Saints’ Day (Scrivener 1894, I, 85). One of those passages is Lk. 24:36-53, when the risen Jesus makes himself known, so there is a good chance that this represents the ﬁrst three verses of that reading. According to the ancient paragraphs, there were breaks at vv. 44, 50 and 52, so it is not surprising that this lectionary does not indicate any sub-units within the pericope.

54

Stanley E. Porter

2.10

John 20:1-18

The top left part of the page on which this passage begins is damaged, but it appears that the page begins in the middle of the verse (it begins with ‘and he saw the stone moved’) as a continuation on this page from the one before. Presumably, in the light of how pericopes are begun elsewhere in this manuscript, this unit would have begun with ekthesis and a coronis. The pericope ends apparently with a short line (since again the page is damaged and is cut away at just this point) and presumably with a double dot. This passage also is one of the eleven Gospel passages used on Sundays at Matins, although this lectionary pericope combines two of those passages, Jn 20:1-10 and 11-18, into one. Therefore, it comes as somewhat of a surprise that this pericope on the empty tomb and Mary Magdalene’s seeing of Jesus does not have a sub-unit delimitation between vv. 10 and 11 (also an ancient paragraph division). Quite clearly, the lectionary, though slightly damaged at vv. 10-11, continues its text, with a raised dot of punctuation at the end of v. 10 but no space before beginning the wording of v. 11 and no other indications of unit delimitation. This lectionary passage indicates that at this early period this entire lection was used as a whole, possibly with the inclusion of Mary Magdalene in Jn 20:1 being seen to create a unifying idea or motif for the passage. It appears to have been only later that such a division into two parts occurred.

2.11

John 20:24-27

This pericope begins with ekthesis and a larger letter, with coronis, but the manuscript ends and there is no conclusion to this unit. The previous unit in the standard lection is Jn 20:19-23, to be read on Whitsunday Matins, but there is no use made in the standard lection of this passage on Thomas seeing Jesus and believing. Presumably, the pericope would have continued to v. 29. Within this pericope, there is one sub-unit delimitation between v. 25 and v. 26. Verse 25 has its last two letters on a line, followed by a raised dot of punctuation, a small space, and then the ﬁrst two and a half words (kai meq hme) of v. 26, with the rest of the word on the next line ekthetic and with a paragraphos (ras oktwn palin).9 9

Note the use of the nu before a stop consonant.

The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation

55

This does not correspond to an ancient paragraph marker in other manuscripts, but clearly is found here, perhaps as an indication of a tertiary break to signal the passing of eight days before Thomas confronts Jesus.

3 Conclusion Several conclusions can be drawn from this study of this single lectionary manuscript. The ﬁrst is that it appears that this manuscript reinforces what has already been known, and that is that at this date the lectionary units had not yet been established, even if they were in use in various forms in the various early churches. This manuscript has divided its pericopes in a variety of ways that do not correspond with what was later established as the standard lectionary units (recognizing that there was even then considerable variation). Sometimes this means including more or less verses, or simply arranging the units of verses in diﬀerent ways. Furthermore, it includes a number of passages that later were not used within the standard lectionary cycle. There is the third factor that this manuscript appears to have arranged its pericopes in a way that does not correspond with a standard lectionary cycle – although we must be cautious here since we only have an ad hoc number of pages of what must have been a much larger codex with at least parts of all four of the Gospels in it. A ﬁnal factor is that this lectionary indicates that there is merit in utilizing the lectionaries much more thoroughly in textual criticism, since this manuscript does not seem to have signiﬁcantly altered its text so as to introduce the various reading units.10 In terms of the unit markers, there seems to be a consistent pattern at play in this manuscript. A certain set of features is consistently found to indicate the beginning and closing of a pericope. These include the leaving of several lines of space before and after, the ekthetic writing of the ﬁrst word, with a coronis to draw attention to the beginning of the unit, and concluding with a short line with this manuscript’s strongest form of punctuation, the double dot. Within these pericopes, I have diﬀerentiated secondary and 10

I have not discussed other places where this lectionary manuscript agrees with our standard Greek text, but where there are other manuscripts with variants.

56

Stanley E. Porter

tertiary unit divisions. These minor unit delimiters are made up of a combination of a number of features, including use of the short line, raised dot of punctuation, ekthesis with larger letter and paragraphos (and one time a coronis). The larger the conﬂuence of these features, it appears, the stronger the internal break within the pericope, what I have called a secondary delimitation. When fewer of these features are used, and especially when the text is written continuously without starting a new line, there is a weaker internal break, what I have called a tertiary delimitation. Finally, these unit delimitations are used in various ways. The major pericope breaks are apparently used to mark oﬀ major sense units within the manuscript. Although they often diﬀer from the standard lectionary units, there appears to be a common determinable sense to the major pericope delimitations. Minor breaks, whether secondary or tertiary, are used in a variety of ways. Some indicate thematic or conceptual shifts, but others indicate structural and even grammatical shifts. Sometimes they are used to break up the material, often indicating that there is a new sub-unit of material that continues the same general theme but with a diﬀerent emphasis. Sometimes they are used to mark a shift in grammatical structure, and, along with this, perhaps simply to break up what might otherwise tend to be a monotonous series of constructions. Sometimes the minor breaks are used to create a progression in development of the argument, in eﬀect heightening the level of interest as the pericope advances. In any event, the unit delimiters in this manuscript perform a complex set of functions related to selecting, organizing and then highlighting various units within the larger body of biblical material that guided the reader in transmitting the meaning of the sacred text.

The Inﬂuence of Unit Delimitation

57

4 Appendix: Chart of Major and Minor Unit Delimitations Matthew 3:7-17 Major: 3:17 – short ﬁnal line, double dot, space Minor: 3:10-11 – raised dot, space, ekthesis, paragraphos 3:12-13 – double dot, ekthesis, coronis Matthew 4:23–5:12 Major: 4:23 – ekthesis, larger letter, coronis 5:12 – short line, double punctuation, space Minor: 4:25-5:1 – short line, double punctuation, ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos 5:2-3 – short line, raised dot, ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos 5:3-4 – ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos 5:4-5 – short line, ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos 5:6-7 – short line, raised dot, ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos 5:7-8 – ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos 5:8-9 – short line, raised dot, ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos 5:9-10 – raised dot, ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos 5:10-11 – short line, raised dot, ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos Matthew 7:13-20 Major: 7:13 – ekthesis, larger letter, coronis 7:20 – space Minor: 7:14-15 – raised dot, ekthesis, larger letter Matthew 10:37-42 Major: 10:37 – ekthesis, larger letter, coronis 10:42 – short line, (double dot), space Minor: 10:37-38 – raised dot, space, ekthesis 10:38-39 – raised dot, ekthesis, larger letter, paragraphos Matthew 9:35 Major: 9:35

– ekthesis, larger letter, coronis

58 Mark 6:18-29 Major: 6:29 Minor: 6:20-21 Luke 2:1-20 Major: 2:1 2:20 Luke 11:27-32 Major: 11:27 11:32 Minor: 11:28-29

Stanley E. Porter

– short line, double dot, space – raised dot, space, paragraphos, ekthesis, larger letter

– ekthesis, larger letter, coronis – short line, double dot, space

– ekthesis, larger letter, coronis – short line, double punctuation, space – raised dot, paragraphos, ekthesis, larger letter

Luke 24:36-38 Major: 24:36

– ekthesis, larger letter, coronis

John 20:1-18 Major: 20:18

– short line, (double dot), space

John 20:24-27 Major: 20:24 Minor: 20:25-26

– ekthesis, larger letter, coronis – raised dot, space, ekthesis, paragraphos

Bibliography Aland et al. 1979 – K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, A. Wikgren (eds), Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart 26 1979. Colwell 1932/1969 – E.C. Colwell, ‘Method in the Study of Gospel Lectionaries’, HThR 25 (1932), 73-84; repr. in his Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS, 9), Leiden 1969, 84-95. Finegan 1974 – J. Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism, London 1974. Gardthausen 1911/1913 – V. Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie, 2 vols., Leipzig 1911, 1913. Kenyon 1899 – F.G. Kenyon, Palaeography of the Greek Papyri, Oxford 1899. Metzger 1969 – B.M. Metzger, ‘A Comparison of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary and the Greek Gospel Lectionary’, in: E.E. Ellis, M. Wilcox (eds), Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, Edinburgh 1969, 201-20. Metzger 1981 – B.M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography, New York 1981. Olley 2002 – J.W. Olley, ‘Paragraphing in the Greek Text of Ezekiel in ∏967 : With Particular Reference to the Cologne Portion’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (Pericope, 3), Assen 2002, 202-25. Osburn 1995 – C.D. Osburn, ‘The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament’, in: B.D. Ehrman, M.W. Holmes (eds), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Grand Rapids 1995, 61-74. Porter 2005 – S.E. Porter, ‘Pericope Markers in Some Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets (Pericope, 5), Assen 2005, 161-76.

60

Stanley E. Porter

Porter & Porter forthcoming – S.E. Porter, W.J. Porter, New Testament Greek Papyri and Parchments: New Editions (MPER NS), forthcoming. Scrivener 1894 – F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (ed. E. Miller), 2 vols., London 1894. Tov 2000 – E. Tov, ‘The Background of the Sense Divisions in the Biblical Texts’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000, 312-50. Turner 1987 – E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement, 46), London 1987.

The Accents Hierarchy and Meaning E.J. Revell Charlbury – England

1 Introduction The term ‘accent’ refers to the marks which, in addition to the vowel signs, are used on the words of the Hebrew Bible. In simple terms, each accent represents a group of musical notes, a motif.1 Together these motifs represent the music, probably ultimately derived from the contours of formal speech, to which the text is chanted with the intention of presenting it meaningfully to an audience or congregation.2 This meaningful presentation is achieved in the chant, as in other speech, by delineating the units of meaning composing the text, and indicating the way they are inter-related, and by drawing attention to those considered most important. For the purpose of marking the semantic units and their boundaries, the accents are divided into two groups. The μyqyspm, disjunctive, or dividing accents, mark the ends of verses, the units basic to the system, and mark the ends of the semantic sub-units which make up the verse. Their use forms the topic of this paper. The μyrbjm, conjunctive or joining accents, mark the words within the units so delimited, showing that they combine to form a unit of which the end is marked by the next disjunctive. This purpose is also served by the hyphen-like maqqef, which shows that the words it joins form, in terms of the accent system, a single ‘word-unit’, governed by the accent on the last. In this way, the accents locate every word in the text in its position in one of the units forming a verse. Two forms of accentuation are used in the Masoretic text: one in the Three Books, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job (excluding Job 1:1–3:1 1 Breuer 1982, 368, points out that the accents represent melodies, not divisions. 2 The accents are referred to in medieval treatises by names referring to music, as Hebrew neg¯ın¯ ah, Arabic lah.n, or to meaning, as Hebrew .ta‘am. Their relation to formal speech is suggested in Dresher 1994, 48.

62

E.J. Revell

and 42:7-17), and the other in those verses of Job, and in the Twentyone Books comprising the rest of the text. This survey is concerned only with the accentuation of the Twenty-one Books. Most examples are taken from simple narrative prose, so that the eﬀects of the usage can be seen as clearly as possible.

2 The ‘Hierarchy’ of the Accents The relationship of the semantic units forming a verse is indicated through the ‘hierarchy’ of the accents, the arrangements in which they can be used. This has often been described, so a brief survey only is given here.3 Following Wickes (1887), the accentuation is often described as a system of dichotomies: each unit is commonly divided in two, and those divisions are also divided, and so on, until the smallest unit is reached.4 The Biblical text is divided into verses, sections of text recognized by the tradition as independent units. The end of each verse is marked with silluq, which is regularly preceded by .tifh.a. The main division of the verse, the end of the ﬁrst ‘half’, is usually marked with atnah., also regularly preceded by .tifh.a. If atnah. is not used, as may be the case in a shorter verse, the main division of the verse is marked by the .tifh.a regular before silluq, or by zaqef. The end of a major semantic unit preceding the silluq or atnah. unit is marked by zaqef, usually preceded by paˇs.ta. Several zaqef units may be used in either half of the verse. Segolta, usually preceded by zarqa (or, if the unit is one word only, ˇsalˇselet), may be used in place of (paˇs.ta–) zaqef at the end of the ﬁrst of two or more such units in the ﬁrst half of the verse. Revia is typically used to mark the main division in a longer unit ending with zaqef or segolta. The paˇs.ta, or zarqa, immediately before zaqef or segolta respectively, then marks a lesser division, or it marks the main division of a shorter unit in which revia is not used. In a similar way, tevir marks a division before .tifh.a, with a preceding revia marking 3

The hierarchy is described in considerable detail, and with exemplary clarity, in Price 1990. 4 The term ‘dichotomy’ does not imply that all but the smallest units are invariably divided in two, just that this is the common division. For recognition of division of verses into three parts, see De Hoop 2003b. Some American Linguists from the mid-twentieth century on used a similar method of ‘dichotomy’, ‘Immediate Constituent Analysis’, for analyzing syntactic structure.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

63

the main division of the unit if it is long. The remaining, less common, accents: pazer, gereˇs, teliˇsa, and legarmeh, are used to mark less important divisions within the units terminated by the more common accents.

3 The Meaning of the Accents Introduction

3.1

The meaning of the accents is a more diﬃcult topic to cover.5 As a guide to interpretation, the accentuation depends on the division of the text into verses. Verses are diverse as to grammatical structure; they may be composed of one clause, of part of a clause, or of two or more clauses.6 A verse is treated as an independent unit on account of its signiﬁcance in its context. Thus an introduction to speech, such as ‘A said to B’, typically forms a relatively unimportant part of a verse. However, where the speech is of particular importance, as where A designates God, and B a noteworthy leader, such an introduction is often treated as a verse on its own, as in Gen. 8:15:

rmoêa˝le j'nOAla, μyhi`løa‘ rBed"y“w" 5

And God spoke (t) to Noah. saying.(S)7

The term ‘meaning’ here is understood as referring to the way the accents reﬂect the Masoretic interpretation of the text. The marking of the position of the main word stress might be cited as a further aspect of the meaning of the accents, as stress position may serve to distinguish homographs. However, stress position may be aﬀected by a variety of features of the reading tradition, such as nesiga, so this aspect of the function of the accents is not as unambiguous as is often suggested. 6 The possibilities are surveyed in greater detail in Price 1990, 139. 7 In the examples, all disjunctive accents are marked in the Hebrew. In the translation, the disjunctives are represented as follows: Silluq (S) Revia (r) Tevir (tv) Atnah. (A) T (t) Gereˇs (g) . ifh.a Segolta (Sg) Zarqa (zr) Legarmeh (lg) ˇ selet (Sl) Salˇ Paˇs.ta (p) Pazer (pz) Zaqef (Z) Yetiv (y) Teliˇsa (tl) The accents are listed in order of ‘status’. In several cases, minor variations consequent on the structure of the unit marked by a particular accent have ˇ selet and yetiv are distinct signs and names. (For details, see Yeivin 1980.) Salˇ listed above, as neither sign nor name is easily related to that of segolta or paˇs.ta. Zaqef gadol, gerˇsayim and pazer gadol are included with zaqef, gereˇs and pazer, as names and signs are easily related. P preceding the symbol of the accent, as (P,Z), indicates that the word marked by the accent is a pausal form. xP used in

64

E.J. Revell

The following verse presents the speech, the command to Noah and his family to leave the ark. The isolation of the introduction in a separate verse concentrates attention on the command, reﬂecting its importance. The importance or signiﬁcance which determines the treatment of units such as Gen. 8:15 appears to derive both from the immediate narrative context, and from the wider context, the political and religious development of the Hebrew people. Both criteria can be said to be involved here. Both are also combined in Est. 4:15, another introduction to speech forming a verse, which introduces Esther’s promise to Mordecai that she will approach the King if the Jews support her by joining in a preparatory three-day fast. The units into which a verse is divided reﬂect analysis of the content in the same way as does the division into verses. Any statement on the determination of the ‘meaning’ or intention of the accentuation, i.e. any attempt, such as the suggestion just made, to explain why some features are arranged in particular texts in the way that they are, must be intuitive rather than scientiﬁc.8 The semantic units marked by the accentuation may agree with those on which in some early translation or commentary is evidently based, in which case it is reasonable to conclude that the same interpretation is represented. However, it is not always possible to align the accentuation with the known interpretative texts,9 and it may be possible to claim that the information it provides could reﬂect diﬀering interpretations. Thus, the accentuation of the three-word clause opening the declaration in Deut. 26:5 db´¢ao yŸMir"a} y˝bi+a; with a disjunctive accent on the ﬁrst word and a conjunctive on the second, strongly suggests that dbeao was understood as a verb, as in the ancient versions, rather than as a participle functioning as an adjective modifying yMir"a,} as suggested by most scholars today.10 the same way shows that the word could show pause but does not. In example 9, [P] indicates that the word is a ‘minor’ pausal form; cf. n. 28. The translation is an attempt to present the meaning while keeping as close as possible to the word-order of the Hebrew. 8 Early commentators do not often mention the accents. 9 Breuer 1982, 368ﬀ., lists a number of cases in which the accentuation reﬂects a rabbinic interpretation at variance with the peˇsat., or plain meaning of the text, and (on p. 374 ﬀ.), examples in which the reverse appears to be the case. 10 See Kogut 1994, 65, Breuer 1982, 370. A noun followed by a modifying adjective or participle is typically joined to it by a conjunctive accent, as in the three examples in Jer. 50:41, or by maqqef, but a disjunctive may be used, as

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

65

However, they do not show whether yMir"a} was understood as the subject of the verb, as in the Targums and the Vulgate (Syrus persequebatur patrem meum), or as its object, as in the Septuagint (Surivan ajpevbalen oJ pathvr mou).11 The purpose of this paper is simply to show how the accents guide the interpretation of the text, not to determine the speciﬁc interpretation that they reﬂect. The disjunctive accents were traditionally classiﬁed in four groups according to their status or ‘pausal value’, as noted by Yeivin (1980, §§ 195-7). Other systems have been suggested more recently. The unit terminated by an accent in one grade is divided by an accent in the grade below. The units into which a verse is divided vary in syntactical structure, as is amply shown in the examples below; a unit terminated by zaqef may range from a group of clauses (example 6) to a construct noun (example 9). For this reason the accents, considered as punctuation, vary considerably in value in comparison to the punctuation marks of European languages. This is perhaps the reason why one accent in a particular situation is sometimes said to have the value typically assigned to another. Thus De Hoop (2000, 91) states that the value of atnah. is comparable to that of zaqef in Lam. 3:56 because it immediately precedes the clause terminated by silluq. The punctuation mark equivalent to atnah. might, indeed, sometimes be a full-stop, and sometimes a comma, but the function of atnah. does not vary; it is the main divider of the verse, the unit terminated by silluq. In shorter verse, zaqef or .tifh.a acts as the main divider if atnah. is not present.12 Presumably the higher the status of the accent used, the greater signiﬁcance attributed to the verse in its context. For example, Gen. 1:3, concerning the creation of light, is divided by atnah., while Gen. 1:13, which merely continues the setting of the time-frame, is divided by .tifh.a.13 in example 10 below. dbeao was understood as a participle by Rashbam and Ibn Ezra (Kogut 1994, 192, 206). 11 The order object–verb–subject is not common in Hebrew clauses, but examples are found, e.g. 1 Sam. 27:11; 2 Sam. 2:3; 1 Kgs 9:26. Any component placed before the verb is highlighted by its position; a disjunctive is commonly used to complement this. 12 Thus, in examples such as Isa. 46:2 and 48:2, cited in De Hoop 2000, 92 n. 64, a suggestion that atnah. has the value of zaqef needs to be supported by some indication of why zaqef itself was not used. This is not true of Lam. 3:56, as atnah. is regularly used where the second half of the verse includes four or more words (see Wickes 1887, 63-4). 13 See also the beginning of section 3.2. It is also noteworthy that the number

66

E.J. Revell

The tendency to view the accents as if they were European-style punctuation is also probably the reason why the classiﬁcation of the accents in grades can give a false impression (see Yeivin 1980, § 196). Such classiﬁcation is, nevertheless, convenient for description. For present purposes only two grades will be used: major disjunctives, the symbols for which are capitals, silluq, atnah. and zaqef (with which the much less common segolta and ˇsalˇselet can be included) and minor disjunctives, which covers the rest. This is not an attempt to describe the ‘pausal value’ of the accents, however that was realized, but to indicate their value as of major or lesser signiﬁcance as guides to the interpretation of the text. A view somewhat diﬀerent from that presented here uses the term ‘distinctive’ for what are here called ‘disjunctive’ accents, and maintains that these ‘distinctive’ accents only have ‘disjunctive’ value when preceded by a dependent ‘distinctive’ accent. Such suggestions are most commonly cited in attempts to ﬁnd objective support for analysis of the structure of Biblical poetry, where it is maintained that an accent disjunctive in this sense may end a colon, but one which is merely distinctive may not.14 These suggestions require further reﬁnement before they can be accepted. Analyses by scholars holding these views include cases in which the same combinations of accents are held to stand within a colon, or to end one, so that they cannot be held clearly to mark the end of a colon.15 There is no doubt that the semantic units delimited by the accentuation are often co-terminous with syntactic units, or with the ‘cola’ of the original structure of a poetical passage. Such coincidence is a natural result of the way in which syntax or poetic structure is used to convey meaning. However, it is clear from several examples of words, as deﬁned by the spaces of the writing system, is six in both verses, whereas the accent system marks ﬁve words (with two internal disjunctives) in Gen. 1:3, but only four (with one internal disjunctive) in Gen. 1:13. See 3.3 below. 14 See Sanders 2000, 279-280. M.C.A. Korpel (2000, 27) states that the use of the term ‘colon’ in the analysis of a text does not imply that it is considered to be poetry, but the views described are certainly cited most commonly in the analysis of poetry. 15 The combination revia–paˇs.ta standing within a colon is defended in De Hoop 2000, 96, and suggested as ending colon Gen. 49:8aA in De Hoop 2003, 16. Sanders (2000, 280 n.8) suggests that revia may end a colon even if not preceded by a dependent disjunctive, but it is stated in De Hoop 2000, 96, that a single revia often stands within a colon.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

67

given below that the accent system is not an attempt to delineate syntactic structure.16 It seems probable that it is equally not an attempt to delimit cola. Indeed, it is not clear that the Masoretes, in their attempt to represent the traditional reading, had any interest in the structure of ancient poetry as such.17 The relationship of the accents to poetic structure is presumably an accidental side-eﬀect of the close relation between linguistic units (semantic or syntactic) and cola, a relationship demonstrated by the fact that ‘enjambment’ is not usual.18 The following presentation is based on the idea that the basic function of the accents is to relate the words of the text to the music to which they were chanted, so as to present the meaning of the text as clearly and as beautifully as possible. The chant, like ordinary speech, delimited the semantic units forming a verse, showed how they were related, and drew attention to the relative signiﬁcance of the units in the verse, and of the verse in the text. These functions, which constitute the ‘meaning’ of the accentuation, are determined by three factors: the disjunctives chosen for use, the number which are used, and the positions in which they are placed.

3.2

The Disjunctives Chosen for Use

Silluq marks the end of a verse, an independent semantic unit. The value of the disjunctive accents used within a verse depends mainly on the length and complexity of that particular verse. Their value, or ‘status’, can to some extent be gauged by their position in the hier16 Disjunctive accents almost invariably stand at the end of what is a syntactic unit at some level (always, if a word is considered such a unit), but they do not necessarily delineate the relationship of the units as would a syntactic analysis, as is shown in examples 4, 7, 9. 17 Sanders (2000, 280) states that ‘It must be kept in mind that the accents were not added in the ﬁrst place to indicate the correct colometry’. It is accepted, in Korpel & De Moor 1998, 11, that the accentuation does not always support their analysis of poetic structure because ‘In some cases . . . the Masoretic distinctive accents rest on rabbinic exegesis which cannot be followed by modern scholarship any more.’ There was an ancient tradition of writing some poetry colometrically, but the divisions rarely agree fully with the poetic structure even in the best Masoretic manuscripts. In most manuscripts, the ‘colometric’ writing is simply used as a traditional pattern with no necessary relation to poetic structure. Similar patterns are used, with similar irregularities, in the writing of lists (as 2 Sam. 23:24-39 in the manuscripts A, C, and L). 18 Price 1990, 17: ‘In good poetry, grammatical syntax and poetic structure exhibit considerable harmony.’

68

E.J. Revell

archy, i.e. by the extent to which preceding accents are subordinate to them, or they are subordinate to following ones. The higher the status of the accent used, the more important the passage marked. For example, in 1 Sam. 20:21, the last word in David’s hypothetical speech is marked with revia; in verse 22, the last word in the parallel suggestion is marked with atnah.. This second speech would indicate danger, as opposed to the lack of danger represented by the ﬁrst, so the second alternative is the more important, and is marked with disjunctives of higher status, so that it will get closer attention. There is often the possibility that a particular division in a verse could be marked either by an accent with a high status in the hierarchy, or by one with a lower status. For instance, the main division of a verse is typically marked by atnah., but, in a short verse, a lesser disjunctive may be used, as in Example 1 – Judges 17:1

.Why“k…âymi wmøv]W μyIr:¡p]a,Arh'me vyaiAyhiy“w" There was a man from the hill-country of Ephraim,(P,t) and his name was Micah.(S)

The .tifh.a used between the two clauses of this verse is the least possible use of disjunctives in both number and status. The verse presents introductory material, of no signiﬁcance beyond the story it opens. Where more material of greater importance is presented, a similar basic structure is marked with more accents, and more important ones, as in Example 2 – 1 Samuel 1:1

μj;roy“AˆB, hn:q;l]a,· /˝m^v]˝W μyIr:–p]a, rh'me μypi`/x μyItæöm;r:˝h;Aˆmi dj;⁄a, vyai yhiy“w" .ytiâr:p]a, πWx¡Aˆb, WjToAˆB, aWhüylia‘AˆB, There was a man (g) from Ramathaim (tv) Zophim,(t) from the hill-country of Ephraim,(P,A) and his name (pz) was Elkanah (tl) ben Yeroham ben Elihu (tv) ben Tohu ben Zuph,(t) Ephraimite.(S)

Atnah. is required as the main divider of this verse because of the length of its second half, but could also have been used in example 1 (see Wickes 1887, 61ﬀ.). The choice of .tifh.a there is clear indication of the lesser importance of the material.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

69

A further example of a similar structure occurs in Example 3 – Esther 2:5

vyqi`AˆB, y[iöm]viAˆB, ryaiy: ˆB, yk'%DÜr“m; wmøv]W hr:–yBi˝h' ˆv'WvB] hy:¡h; ydI+Why“ vyai .y nIêymiy“ vyai A Jewish man (Z) was (t) in the City of Susa,(A) and his name was Mordecai (r) ben Yair ben Shimei (tv) ben Kish,(t) Benjaminite.(S)

The main divider of the verse is again atnah., but the main divider of the ﬁrst clause is here zaqef, as opposed to the .tifh.a which divides the (longer) ﬁrst half in example 2. This zaqef marks ydI+Why“ vyai as a signiﬁcant unit on its own, supporting the highlighting aﬀorded by its pre-verbal position, which reﬂects the important fact of the appearance of a Jew in the story, which has hitherto dealt only with Persians. The simple dj;⁄a, vyai, the subject of the ﬁrst clause in example 2, is in the default post-verbal position. It carries negligible information, and so is marked only with gereˇs. The use of revia on Mordecai’s name further marks his importance as a central character in the story, while the use of teliˇsa in example 2 reﬂects Elkanah’s relative insigniﬁcance.

3.3

The Number of Disjunctives Used

The phrases composing the two clauses in Judg. 17:1 could have been separated by disjunctives as are those in 1 Sam. 1:1 and Est. 2:5, but they are not. This fact reﬂects the general rule that the more disjunctive accents are used in a passage, the greater the signiﬁcance attributed to that passage (cf. note 13). The use of many disjunctives draws the attention of the hearer, who is made to concentrate on each unit so marked, which may be only one word. Thus each of the four words in 2 Sam. 22:27, which describes qualities of God, has a disjunctive accent, and only one of the seven words of Gen. 22:10 (example 4 below) has a conjunctive. The fact that the four words of Judg. 17:1 are divided only by single disjunctive reﬂects the fact that the Micah referred to is of no signiﬁcance in Biblical history beyond his minor role in the narrative that the verse introduces. The importance of Elkanah, the father of Israel’s leader, Samuel, is greater, and that of Mordecai, who fostered the heroine Esther,

70

E.J. Revell

and became second only to the King in Persia, is greater still. The material introducing these two is similar in the number of divisions marked; the greater importance of Mordecai, an actor in more recent times, is indicated by the higher status of the accents used.

3.4

The Placing of the Disjunctives

In the above three examples, the main verse divider in each verse separates the two clauses which compose it, as would be expected. However, such attention is not always paid to syntactic units, as can be seen in Example 4 – Genesis 22:10

./˝nîB]Ata, fjo¡v]˝li tl,k≤-a}M'˝hæAta, jQæ`YI˝w" /˝d+y:Ata, μ~h;r:b]a' jl'v]YIw" Abraham put out (p) his hand (Z) and took (t) the knife (A) to slaughter (t) his son.(S)

This verse is also composed of two clauses, but the main verse divider, atnah., stands within the second. The accentuation presents two semantic units with boundaries diﬀerent from those of the main syntactic units. This division shows the two verbs, with their joint subject, and the object of each, as forming a single semantic unit, followed by a second unit consisting of an inﬁnitival phrase, which modiﬁes the ﬁrst. The ﬁrst half of the verse presents Abraham’s action; the second, his intention. This much seems clear. It is always tempting to see a further purpose in such unexpected division. In my opinion, its usual intention is to isolate, and so to concentrate the hearer’s attention on, the words following the division, here the words presenting the horrifying result entailed by Abraham’s devoted obedience to the Lord. Others would see the usual purpose as drawing attention to the words before the division (cf. Ackermann 1893, 80 § 31), in this case the preparation to use the knife. Certainly I would have to accept that the zaqef, and the revia in Est. 2:5 (example 3) are intended to draw attention to what precedes them. However, rigid consistency is not to be expected where such limited resources are used for such complex purposes. There is a parallel in the syntax of Biblical narrative, where attention may be drawn to a particular item either by placing it at the beginning of a clause, as is common, or at the end, as e.g. with the name of Micaiah ben Yimlah

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

71

in 1 Kgs 22:8. In any case, what is important is to understand the eﬀect of a division which does not simply delimit the units of syntax in their hierarchy. If several plausible purposes for this can be seen, it must be accepted that all are potentially achieved. Rules based on the number of words in a phrase may be seen as suggesting that the placing of accents was, to some extent, determined mechanically.19 What these rules reﬂect is the common semantic structure of phrases. The ﬁrst word in a construct phrase is typically the head, and so is distinguished with a disjunctive if the phrase has three words, as are the ﬁrst and second words in a phrase of four. It is this semantic reality that motivates the placing of the accents, not simply the number of words. The ‘rules’ given are general descriptions. Exceptions are sometimes made for speciﬁc purposes, as is shown by the examples below, and in those given by Yeivin (1980, §§ 203-6).

4 Examples of the Use of the Accents 4.1

Zaqef

The versatility of the accentuation, and the way it can guide the understanding of the reader or hearer, can be illustrated by surveying the range of use of a particular accent, as zaqef in the following examples. Example 5 – 1 Samuel 1:2

μydI+l;y“ h~N:nIp]˝li yhiy“w" hN:–nIP] tynI¡Ve˝h' μvew“ hN:±j' t~j'a' μve μyvi+n: yTev] /Ÿ˝l˝w“ .μydIêl;y“ ˆyae hN:¡j'˝l]˝W He had (p) two wives.(Z) The name of one (p) was Hannah,(Z) and the name of the second (t) Peninah.(A) Peninah had (p) children,(Z) and Hannah had (t) no children.(S)

The accentuation here shows what is sometimes seen as the ‘logical’ usage, in that it delineates the syntactic structure. The verse is composed of ﬁve clauses, which are separated by zaqef or atnah.. The main verse-divider, atnah., separates the main units of content: one 19 Such rules are noticed in Yeivin 1980, §§ 203-6, and surveyed in greater detail in Ackermann 1893, 74 ﬀ., and Breuer 1982, chapter 15.

72

E.J. Revell

formed of the three clauses introducing and naming Elkanah’s wives, the other of the two which refer to their children. Each clause is divided between subject and predicate by the .tifh.a or paˇs.ta standard before the major disjunctive which terminates it. Zaqef is often used, as is atnah. in the previous example, to mark oﬀ several clauses as a semantic unit, as in Example 6 – 1 Samuel 1:11

Ú˝t,%m;a} ynI[’B; { ha≤¢r“ti haor:Aμai t/a⁄b;x] hw:hy“ rm'%aTo˝w" rd
This verse presents an introduction to speech, followed by Hannah’s vow, which takes the form of a conditional sentence composed of a protasis of four clauses, and an apodosis of two. The main verse division separates the protasis from the apodosis. Zaqef is used once in the ﬁrst half, separating the introduction and the ﬁrst three clauses of the protasis from the fourth. This isolates and so draws attention to the fourth clause, which presents Hannah’s main stipulation, that she be given a son. The ﬁrst three clauses lead up to this, and show its importance to her. The ﬁrst revia, ending the introduction to the speech, is the main divider of the long zaqef unit.20 The speech is divided after the ﬁrst clause by a second revia, and, after the second, by the paˇs.ta standard before the zaqef which ends the unit. The higher status of revia shows the relative independence of the ﬁrst clause as compared to the second and third clauses, which are closely related, virtually synonymous. The second half of the verse is divided by zaqef, which separates the two clauses forming the apodosis. 20

Where the same accent repeated with no accent of superior status intervening, the ﬁrst use is considered the dominant one (Yeivin 1980, § 198; cf. Ackermann 1893, 79 § 28).

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

73

The major disjunctives, silluq, atnah. and zaqef, most commonly do stand at the end of grammatical clauses. However, it is not unusual to ﬁnd them marking the end of major semantic units within a clause, as in Example 7 – 2 Samuel 3:25

Ú˝a,+b;/mAta,˝w“ Ú~˝a}x…/mAta, t['d"⁄˝l;˝w“ aB…- Ú`˝t]Top'˝l] yKi rnE±AˆB, rnEb]a'Ata, T;~[]d"~y: .hc≤â[o hT…`a' rv,a}AlK; ta´ö t['d"È˝l;˝w“ (q) ‘You know (p) of Abner ben Ner (Z) that to deceive you (t) he comes,(A) to know (xP,g) your goings (p) and your comings,(P,Z) and to know (xP,Z) even (tv) all that you (t) are doing’.(S)

Here the verse is composed of one main clause followed by a subordinate clause, which consists of a verb modiﬁed by three inﬁnitival phrases. The atnah. marking the main verse division marks oﬀ as a unit the main clause, plus the verb of the subordinate clause, and one of its inﬁnitival phrases. This presents the basic statement ‘You know that Abner’s intent is to deceive you’, thus drawing attention to this idea. The paˇs.ta, zaqef, and .tifh.a delimit the components of this ﬁrst half in a standard way. The second half of the verse presents details expanding the initial statement. Its main divider is zaqef, which separates the two remaining inﬁnitival phrases. Zaqef is also used within the second of the phrases, where it isolates and so draws attention to what follows: the phrase which speciﬁes the extent of the threat against David; Abner is seeking comprehensive intelligence. The use of tae to introduce this phrase can be seen as delaying its presentation, and so increasing its impact.21 Zaqef may stand at the end of a much smaller unit, such as a noun phrase, as the initial phrase in example 3. In example 8 zaqef marks the end of a noun phrase functioning as an invocation, where this may not seem surprising.

21

The use of a disjunctive on the particle (an example of the general rule given in Yeivin 1980, § 206, on the accentuation of a ‘small word’ followed by a word with a conjunctive), delays the completion of the clause, and so adds to the impact of the wording.

74

E.J. Revell Example 8 – 1 Kings 17:21

rmæ-aYo˝w" hw:¡hy“Ala, ar:q]YIw" μymi+[;P] vløv; d~l,Y<Ÿ˝h'Al[' ddEmot]YIw" ./˝Bêr“qiAl[' hZ<¡˝h' dl,Y
It might be argued that the logical division of this verse would be after the ﬁrst clause, separating Elijah’s action from his speech. In fact the main verse divider, atnah., follows the introduction to the speech, and so marks both the stretching and the speaking as part of the prophet’s restorative act. The ﬁrst half of the verse is divided by zaqef, which separates the description of the action from the introduction to the speech. The use of atnah. after the introduction isolates the speech itself, drawing attention to it, and marking its signiﬁcance. This speech, which forms the second half of the verse, is divided by zaqef after the short phrase representing the invocation. This isolates the invocation from the words of the plea, and so ﬁxes the hearer’s attention on that plea. As noted above, the use of zaqef here, marking the invocation, a noun phrase, as a ‘major unit’, does not seem surprising, no doubt because an English speaker would similarly make a division here. However this should be compared with example 6 (1 Sam. 1:11) where Hannah’s similar invocation ‘O Lord of Hosts’ is separated from the rest of her speech only by a very minor disjunctive, although an English speaker would be equally likely to pause in both cases. In Hannah’s case, the text has already shown that she is addressing God, and three clauses stand between the invocation and the most important part of her speech, the last clause of the protasis plus the apodosis. The contrast between the two examples makes it clear that the choice of disjunctive is not determined only by grammatical structure, or by the semantic content of the unit it marks, but also by the signiﬁcance of that unit, and the verse of which it is part, in the context, both immediate and wider. In fact, if the situation justiﬁes it, a disjunctive may be used on a word in construct (sometimes called a bound form), or a preposition, the forms in Biblical Hebrew which are least independent, and most

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

75

closely related to what follows. Zaqef, .tifh.a and paˇs.ta are all used on such grammatically dependent forms in Example 9 – 2 Kings 9:25

yli-a[er“z“YI˝h' twbøn: hdE¡c] tq'Èl]j,˝B] Wh˝ke+liv]h' ac;º (q) /˝v+liv… r~q'd“BiAla, rm,aYoﬁ˝w" ac;n: h~w:hy˝w" w˝ybi+a; ba;j]a' yŸrEj}aæ μ~ydIm;x] μybik]ro tae hT;a'%˝w: ynIa} rko|z“AyKi .hZ<ê˝h' aC…`M'˝h'Ata, w˝yl;+[; And he said (r) to Bidqar,(p) his oﬃcer,(Z) ‘Take (y) and dump him (Z) in the plot of (Z) the land of (t) Naboth the Jezreelite,(A) for remember (g) I and you ([P ],r) riding as companions (p) after (p) Ahab his father,(Z) and the Lord (p) uttered against him (Z) the sentence (t) that follows’.(S)

The main division of the verse is placed within Jehu’s speech, logically separating the command he issues from the reason he gives for it. The ﬁrst half of the verse is divided by three uses of zaqef. The ﬁrst follows the introduction to speech. As has been noted, the ﬁrst of a set of uses of the same accent is considered the dominant one, so the choice of this accent, rather than, for instance, revia, marks the speech as important, an importance stressed by the fact that two disjunctives are used within the introduction. The second zaqef marks the end of the verb phrase which presents Jehu’s command, thus isolating and drawing attention to the four-word construct phrase which names the location where Jehoram’s body is to be dumped. The third zaqef, on the ﬁrst word of this phrase, its head, the construct form tq"l]j,B,] isolates and draws attention to the words specifying the speciﬁc plot of ground where the corpse is to be left.22 The importance of this location is, of course, that, in the speakers view, it fulﬁls the prophecy which Elijah was instructed to make to Ahab in 1 Kgs 21:17-19. The next word, the head of the remainder of the construct phrase, is marked with .tifh.a, which isolates the two word designation of Naboth, the most important item in the identiﬁcation of this location. The atnah. on this designation ends the verse-half, and also draws attention to the name. 22 The accentuation of this phrase illustrates the rule for the accentuation of phrases given in Yeivin 1980, § 204, mentioned at the end of section 3.4 above. As argued there, the disjunctives mark the heads of the phrases of which the designation is composed, so that their use enhances the presentation of the meaning; it is not simply based on the number of words in the phrase.

76

E.J. Revell

The fact that the words of this designation are the only two words in the command which are not separated by a disjunctive underlines the extent to which the accentuation is designed to concentrate the hearer’s mind on this command. The second half of the verse refers to the prophecy in somewhat obscure language. The main divider is the ﬁrst zaqef which separates the description of the circumstances in which the speaker became aware of the prophecy from the actual reference to the prophecy. It thus isolates and draws attention to the reference to the prophecy. The revia which divides this ﬁrst zaqef unit separates the exhortation to remember from the details of the action to be remembered. The presentation of the details is twice divided by paˇs.ta. The ﬁrst separates the participle from the prepositional phrase modifying it, drawing attention to that phrase. The second, which marks the preposition, stresses the need for attention by isolating the designation of Ahab, the target of the prophecy. The ﬁnal clause of the verse is introduced by a conjunction commonly considered to show that the events recounted in this and the preceding clause were contemporaneous, as so often rendered ‘when’. This ﬁnal clause is divided by the second zaqef, which separates the subject and the verb-phrase from the object of the clause, and so isolates and draws attention the words designating the prophecy delivered against Ahab. The brief phrase designating the prophecy is divided by .tifh.a, which isolates and highlights the ﬁnal demonstrative.23 Again in the second half of the verse, the large number of disjunctives used, and their relatively high status, testify to the signiﬁcance ascribed the content. The signiﬁcance ascribed to the passage is also indicated by the fact that the prophecy, represented only by the demonstrative at the end of this verse, is isolated in the following verse and so highlighted.

4.2

Minor Disjunctives

The disjunctives here called ‘minor’ are used to subdivide the units ending with the major disjunctives. These minor units may be the clauses which are combined to form a major unit, as in the opening of Hanna’s vow in example 6, or they may be the phrases which 23 The separation of a demonstrative from the noun it modiﬁes is most unusual (cf. Yeivin 1980, § 203, Ackermann 1893, 75 § 8), and so increases this eﬀect.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

77

make up a clause, as in example 2 and example 3. They often delimit syntactic structures, as where they separate subject and predicate of a clause, whether verbal (as the last clause in example 6), or verbless (as most of the clauses in example 5). They do this however, to express the semantic content of the passage, and their position can often be seen as designed to draw attention to particular items. For instance, the last clause in example 6 is not a simple clause of two structures, as are the verbless clauses in example 5; it is composed of subject, verb, and adverb. The placing of the subject before the verb highlights it, and the use of a disjunctive accent on the subject supports this purpose. That clause could have been divided between subject-verb and adverb, to draw attention to the latter. Examples of an adverb separated from the core of the clause occur in Example 10 – 2 Samuel 11:2

Ël,M,+˝h'AtyBe gG"Al[' Ë~Leh't]YI˝w" /Ÿ˝bK;v]mi l['me dwI@D: μq:Y:w" br<[,%˝h; t[el] yhiy“w" .daoêm] ha≤`r“m' tb'wfø hV;+ai˝h…˝w“ gG:–˝h' l['me tx,j`r≤ o hV…öai ar“Y"w" It was evening,(xP,r) and David got up (g) from his bed,(p) and strolled about (p) on the roof of the palace,(Z) and he saw a woman (tv) washing (t) from the roof,(A) and the woman (Z) was good to look at,(t) extremely.(S)

The main verse divider separates four clauses which describe David’s ﬁrst seeing Bathsheba from the ﬁfth and ﬁnal clause, which presents what we may take as the impression of her which he formed as a result. It thus isolates, and so draws attention to, that clause. The ﬁrst half of the verse is divided by zaqef which isolates a clause presenting David’s seeing of the woman by separating it from the three initial clauses, which describe the circumstances in which he saw her. The ﬁrst of these three clauses, which locates the events of the verse in time, is marked with revia, separating it from the next two, which describe David’s actions. These two clauses, which are separated by paˇs.ta, are each divided between verb and subject (in the second case only pronominal) and an adverbial phrase. It is diﬃcult to attach much meaning to the isolation of the phrase ‘from his bed’, but David’s location ‘on the roof of the palace’ is certainly signiﬁcant, and the isolation of the phrase can be seen as drawing attention to this. The fourth clause, following the zaqef, is divided

78

E.J. Revell

by .tifh.a, which similarly separates a locative adverb from the core of the clause, and so draws attention to David’s position, able to admire but not to communicate. In the core of that clause, tevir stands between noun and modiﬁer. This unusual separation (see note 10) draws attention to the modifying participle which describes Bathsheba’s occupation, perhaps because it was taken as indicating that she was naked. The second half of the verse consists of a single clause. Its main divider, zaqef, separates the subject, the current focus of attention, from the descriptive predicate. The predicate is divided between the descriptive phrase and an intensiﬁer, which is isolated and so emphasized by this division. This may be compared with the description of Abishag, the other woman noted for her relationship with David. Example 11 – 1 Kings 1:4

.H˝[…âd:y“ alø Ël,M≤`˝h'˝w“ Wh˝te+r“v…T]˝w" t~n
The main division of the verse separates the description of the girl from the statement of what happened to her. The subject of the clause forming the ﬁrst half, again the focus of attention, is separated from the predicate by the main division of the verse-half, as with the last clause in example 10. The predicate is again descriptive, and includes an intensiﬁer. Here, however, in contrast to the case in example 10, no division is made between adjective and intensiﬁer. Abishag’s beauty is of no particular signiﬁcance in the narrative, and no attempt is made to use the accents to add to the impression conveyed by the wording. In the second verse-half, the zaqef, the main divider, separates the two clauses describing the girl’s occupation, which are separated by paˇs.ta, from the ﬁnal clause, which describes the King’s relationship with her. This ﬁnal clause is divided after the subject as is usual where the subject is preposed.24 The accentuation divides this verse into three units, separated by 24

See note 11. The subject in this case stresses David’s status as King (see Revell 1996, § 6.5.1), providing additional reason for drawing attention to it in this way.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

79

atnah. and zaqef, which deal with three diﬀerent topics. Each of these units is divided by the .tifh.a or paˇs.ta appropriate for the position, which separates the two syntactic structures of which the unit is composed. The accentuation thus clearly presents the simple meaning of the passage. It can be said, however, that the internal division of the ﬁrst and last clause gives some prominence to their content, as opposed to that of the second, which is not divided internally.

5 Pausal Forms When considering the accentuation, something must be said about pausal forms. Some (as Dresher 1994) argue that pausal forms mark the ends of ‘intonational phrases’, features of the formal chant which happen not to be marked by the accent signs, but are nevertheless part of the system which they represent. Others (the writer among them) would agree that the pausal forms mark phrases into which the text was divided for oral presentation, but would argue that, as they occasionally appear to reﬂect divisions diﬀerent from those marked by the accentuation, they cannot represent precisely the same system as do the accents. The accentuation sometimes suggests an interpretation diﬀering to some extent from that presented in translations or commentaries.25 Changes of the same sort may well have occurred during the development of the Masoretic writing system. Whichever view is correct, it seems clear that pausal forms, ‘slow, full, and emphatic’ in pronunciation (so Jo¨ uon & Muraoka 1993, § 32a), stand at the end of units into which the text was divided for public reading, as do disjunctive accents. Pausal forms are most commonly marked with one of the major disjunctives; it is reasonable to assume that they had similar value, even where not so marked.26 The understanding of the use of pausal forms is complicated by the diﬃculty of identifying them; some words appear in pausal form See Yeivin 1980, § 286. A range of examples is discussed in detail in Breuer 1982, Kogut 1994 (see notes 9 and 10 above). 26 A word marked with silluq fails to show pause only in questionable cases (see next paragraph). With atnah., a certainly contextual form occasionally occurs, as Wr=m]a;˝w“ with atnah. in Deut. 21:7. A word marked with zaqef is often pausal, often contextual in form. Pause is progressively less common the lower the status of the accent, but may occur with any accent, even a conjunctive. 25

80

E.J. Revell

in some places where expected, but not in all,27 and some words appear to take on pausal forms more readily than do others.28 If so, such factors must be assessed before it can be asserted that pausal forms end units of the same value (e.g. cola). A second problem, discussed by Sanders (2003, 265-6), is the question of how the ‘strength’ of the accents in the system against which the pausal forms are compared is to be assessed.29 However, some accents of low status, such as teliˇsa or munah., can be identiﬁed as ‘weak’ beyond doubt, and many forms can be identiﬁed as pausal with certainty. The following discussion attempts to understand the text in terms of the units marked by such pausal forms, whether they appear to complement the accentuation or to contrast with it. This is done here in accordance with the views expressed above. Where a conditional sentence is composed of a protasis of a single clause, introduced by μa, and followed by the apodosis, the word ending the protasis often shows pause, where this is possible.30 Pause in this situation isolates the apodosis, and so draws attention to it, as would a major disjunctive. In fact, the last word in a protasis of 27

Thus tk,l;l; occurs once with silluq (Qoh. 1:7). tk,l,l; appears ﬁve times with atnah. (Exod. 8:24; Judg. 19:5, 7; 1 Sam. 15:27; Ezek. 1:20), once with silluq (Ps. 78:10). 28 E.g. yna, as in example 16. The use of qames. or patah. in originally doubly closed monosyllables with short *a provides many examples. See the discussion in Revell 1981. Words which show two pausal forms, ‘full’ and ‘minor’, are probably a related phenomenon. 29 Some of the few cases noted in Sanders 2003 in which a contextual form stands at the end of a colon are possibly to be explained by the fact that pausal forms mark semantic units, which are not always co-terminous with cola. E.g. it can be suggested that the failure to use a pausal form at the end of the third colon in Deut. 32:13 (p. 270) shows that ‘honey from the rock’ and ‘oil from the ﬂinty boulder’ were treated as closely related in meaning, whereas in Deut. 33:19 ‘the abundance of the seas’ and ‘treasures hid in the sand’ were not, so the former pair were joined in the same unit, while the latter pair were not, even though both pairs form co-ordinate phrases acting as objects of a verb. However, it is less easy to suggest explanations for some of the other examples listed. Clearly Sanders is correct in insisting that a great deal more study is needed. 30 There are some 250 examples of conditional sentences of the sort described in the Pentateuch and former prophets. The last word of the protasis could show pause in 35 cases. It does so in 17 of these. Where the protasis is composed of two or more clauses, the word ending the protasis is in pause in all case noted where this is possible, as in 1 Sam. 17:9. The word ending an internal clause may not be in pause. See Deut. 30:17; 1 Sam. 1:11 (example 6).

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

81

this sort is usually marked with a major disjunctive accent,31 as in Example 12 – Judges 16:7

Wbr:–joAalø rv,a} μyji`l' μyrIt;y“ h[…öb]vi˝B] ynI˝rU%s]a'y"Aμai ˆ/v+m]vi h;~˝yl,~ae rm,aYow" .μd:êa;˝h; dj'a'K] ytiyyI¡h;˝w“ ytiylij;w“ And to her said (p) Samson (Z) ‘If they bind me (r) with seven (tv) fresh ropes,(t) that have never been dried,(P,A) I will weaken and become (t) like any man’.(S)

This speech answers Delilah’s request to know how Samson can be weakened and bound. The protasis gives what Samson intends should be accepted as the correct answer. Four disjunctives are used to lay stress on the details of this answer. The last of these, the atnah., the main verse divider, isolates the apodosis, as does the pausal form which it marks, and so highlights the supposed eﬀect of this disinformation. The last word in a protasis is contextual in form, even though it is marked by a major disjunctive, in Example 13 – 1 Kings 21:6

Ú~˝m]r“K'Ata≤ yLiAhn:T] /˝l% rm'aow: yli⁄a[er“z“YI˝h' twbøn:Ala, rBed"a}·AyKi h;˝yl,%ae rBed"y“w" Ú`˝l] ˆTea,Aalø rm,aYoØ˝w" w˝yT…-j]T' μr
Here, the conditional sentence forms part of a speech reporting a past event. The speech is also an answer to a question, but the relevant information is not contained in the conditional, but in the ﬁrst and last clauses of the speech. The last clause, the most signiﬁcant in the context, is highlighted by placing the main verse-divider before it. The conditional clause is unimportant; it simply presents background detail. Accordingly, no pausal form is used to add to 31 The last word in the protasis of the sentences mentioned in note 30 is marked with an accent of the status of zaqef or above in about 75 % of the examples.

82

E.J. Revell

the impact of the wording, not even the ‘minor’ pausal form which is possible here, as in example 9. The same sort of interpretation can be applied to the use of a pausal or a contextual form at the end of a protasis which is marked with a minor disjunctive accent, as in Example 14 – 2 Kings 2:10

ˆke+ Úl]Ayhiy“ Ë~˝T;ai˝m´ jQ;lu y˝ti⁄ao ha,r“TiAμai l/a–v]˝li t;yviq]hi rm,aYo™˝w" .hy<êh]yI alø ˆyIaæ`Aμai˝w“ And he said (t) ‘You have made a diﬃcult request.(A) If you see me (g) taken from you,(P,p) it will be as you ask,(Z) but if not,(xP,t) it will not’.(S)

Here the main verse divider separates the initial comment from the two conditional sentences. The two conditionals are separated by zaqef, the main divider of the second part of the verse, and the protasis of each is separated from the apodosis by paˇs.ta and .tifh.a respectively, the disjunctives standard for the positions. The conditional sentences give the answer, of great importance to the addressee, to a request he has made. The protasis of the ﬁrst states the condition on which a positive answer depends, as is stated in the apodosis. The pausal form ending the protasis isolates and draws attention to the conﬁrmation in the apodosis. The second protasis, giving the condition for a negative answer, provides no new information. The condition is simply the reverse of the former one; the negative result is entirely predictable, so there is no need for highlighting by a pausal form at the end of the protasis. In fact, where successive conditional sentences present opposite alternatives, the protasis of the second usually ends in a contextual form where pause is possible, and this is always true where the protasis is ˆyIa'Aμaiw“, whether it is marked with a minor disjunctive or a major one. Despite this, both protases in 1 Kgs 20:18 end with pausal forms, even though the second presents the opposite alternative to the ﬁrst, and both are marked with the minor disjunctive .tifh.a. Example 15 – 1 Kings 20:18

.μ˝Wcêp]Ti μyYIj' Wax…`y: hm…öj;l]mi˝l] μaiw“ μyYI–j' μWcp]Ti Wax…`y: μwløv;l]Aμai rm,aYoÿ˝w"

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

83

And he said (tv) ‘If for peace they come out,(P,t) take them alive,(A) and if for war (tv) they come out,(P,t) take them alive’.(S)

Tevir is used at the end of the introduction to Ben Hadad’s command, which is presented in two conditional sentences separated by the main verse divider. T . ifh.a separates the protasis of each from its apodosis, and marks a pausal form in both cases. The command is a response to intelligence of enemy action, and therefore deserves close attention. The apodoses of the two conditional sentences command the actions required in the two contingencies stated in the protases. The second protasis presents the opposite of the ﬁrst, but the command in the second apodosis is not predictable; surprisingly, the same action is commanded in both. The use of a pausal form to highlight both apodoses, encouraging the attention to the apodoses that they deserve, is thus appropriate.32 A protasis may end with a pausal form even where the word is marked with a conjunctive, as in Example 16 – Malachi 1:6

hYEa' ynIa; μynIwdøa}Aμaiw“ y˝dI^/bk] hYEa' ynIa; ba;Aμaiw“ w˝yn:–doa} db,[,w“ ba…` dBek'y“ ˆB´ö WnyzI¡b; hM,B' μT,Èr“m'a}˝w" y˝mi+v] yzEwBø μ~ynIh}Koê˝h' μ~k,˝l; t/a%b;x] hw:hy“ { rmæ¢a; y˝ai⁄r:/m .Ú˝m≤âv]Ata, ‘A son (tv) honours a father,(t) and a servant his Lord,(A) and if father is what I am,(P ) where is my honour?(pz) and if Lord is what I am,(P ) where is my reverence?’(g) says (lg) the Lord of Hosts (r) to you,(p) the priests,(p) despisers of my name,(Z) but you say (Z) ‘How have we despised (t) your name?’.(P,S)

The main verse divider is placed after the two initial statements, which are separated by .tifh.a. The second half of the verse is divided by zaqef between the rest of the speech attributed to God and that attributed to the priests. This isolates and draws attention to the latter speech. This is divided by a second zaqef after the introduction, isolating the speech itself. The use of zaqef here, rather than 32

Another example of a pausal form ending a protasis presenting an opposite alternative occurs in 2 Sam. 15:26, but here, the alternative is given at some length, and is of the highest importance to the speaker and his hearers.

84

E.J. Revell

tevir, increases the impact of this division, and the impact of the terminal question is increased by dividing it between verb and object. The initial part of the second verse-half is divided by revia, isolating and highlighting the designation of the addressees. The long revia unit is made up of two conditional clauses presenting questions arising from the two statements made in the ﬁrst half of the verse, followed by the attribution of the speech. This unit is divided only by pazer after the ﬁrst of the two conditional sentences, and gereˇs after the second. Thus the last word in the protasis of each, although pausal in form, is marked with a conjunctive accent. This suggests that, in the tradition represented by the vowelling, these two questions were given considerable prominence, as is the one at the end of the verse, a prominence which is not accorded to the former by the accentuation.33 In the conditional sentences in the Pentateuch and in the Former Prophets, a word ending a protasis of the sort considered is pausal in form (where possible) where the accent is silluq, or atnah.. Where an accent of lesser status is used, the word is pausal, in addition to the cases already dealt with, where the apodosis presents a command or prohibition (as in Exod. 22:24; Lev. 6:21; 27:8), or presents some other speech which the speaker can be expected to deliver with force or emotion (Gen. 24:41; 31:52; 2 Sam. 12:8; 1 Kgs 13:8; 2 Kgs 1:10, 12). Presumably such cases as 2 Kgs 2:10 (example 14) and Judg. 16:7 (example 12) show that a protasis giving an answer delivered to a questioner to whom it is important also typically had a pausal form at its end. Where the protasis ends in a contextual form, the answer is of little importance, or is delivered to someone other than the questioner, or the situation can for other reasons be considered not to call for force or emotion in the speaker. The most obvious diﬃculty for this view occurs in Judg. 16:17, but the contextual form of yTij]L'GU can be considered to reﬂect the fact that Samson was presented as worn out with Delilah’s importunity, and so not as speaking impressively. A lesser diﬃculty occurs with the 33 yna is quite often pausal in form where marked with a weak accent, as with ynIa;Aμg", ynIa;Ayj', possibly because vowel change was easily induced in this form.

However, the variation in form must also have reﬂected features of the intonation contours related to those which caused the diﬀerentiation of contextual and pausal forms in more typical cases, so it seems certain that some change in the reading tradition did occur.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

85

contextual form lyIj' in 1 Kgs 1:52. Here the speech, though of extreme importance to Adonijah, is not delivered to him, and so can be delivered without emotion.34 In other words, the validity of the interpretation suggested here for the value of a pausal or contextual form at the end of a protasis is not clearly demonstrated. However, it accords well with the use of the major disjunctives as interpreted here, and it cannot be shown to be invalid; it remains a possibility. Even if the interpretation suggested for the use of the pausal forms in the above examples is valid, it is clear that the presentation of the text they reﬂect diﬀered from that reﬂected by the accents only in slight matters of understanding. Such cases are not common, but do also appear in other situations, such as the treatment of parallel structures, as in Example 17 – Deuteronomy 13:5

wløqob]W WŸrmoŸv]Ti wyt;wOx]miAta,w“ War:–yti wtøaow“ Wkl´`Te μk≤ö˝yheløa‘ hw:hy“ yrEj}a' .ˆWqêB;d“ti wbøW Wdbo¡[}t' wtøaow“ W[m;+v]ti After the Lord your God (tv) you will walk.(P,t) Him you will hold in awe.(P,A) His commandments you will keep.(P,p) To His voice you will listen.(P,Z) Him you will serve.(P,t) To Him will you adhere.(P,S)

The verse is made up of six independent clauses, but is divided by the atnah. into unequal parts. The ﬁrst part, composed of two clauses, can be seen as making a general statement of human duties. The initial tevir, the only disjunctive used within a clause, separates the initial adverbial phrase, with its designation of God, to whom these duties are owed, from the following verb. This supports the prominence accorded to the designation of God by the word-order. The four clauses of the second part of the verse deal with particular facets of the duties named. The zaqef, the main divider of the second verse-half, separates two clauses dealing with the word of God from the ﬁnal two which describe the necessary action in relation to that word. The accentuation thus presents a sophisticated analysis of the content of the verse. The last word in each of the six clauses 34

A protasis of the type considered also ends with a contextual form in Gen. 23:8; 31:52; Exod. 32:32; Num. 20:19; Josh. 17:15; Judg. 9:15; 1 Sam. 6:9; 19:11; 21:10; 2 Sam. 10:11; 15:8; 1 Kgs 12:27; 18:21.

86

E.J. Revell

is pausal in form. This complements the structure of the clauses, which is the same for each: the verb is preceded by a component, which is thereby highlighted. However, this suggests that the clauses are all of equal weight. The analysis represented by the accentuation might have been reﬂected by the use of contextual forms with the minor disjunctives, as is usual. However, we do not know enough about pausal forms to declare that their use here shows that their use reﬂects analysis contrasting with that of the accentuation. A list of words or phrases is a common form of set of parallel structures. If the items forming a list are short – few words, or one – they are typically grouped in units of two or three (cf. Yeivin 1980, § 205). Longer items are treated individually. The last word in such units is often pausal in form, as in a set of parallel clauses.35 In some cases units formed from items in a list are treated as verses, which end, of course, with a pausal form if this is possible, as in Lev. 14:54-56. In other cases, items in lists are combined in the usual way within a verse, with the parallel units divided by the accents. In this situation, one of the parallel units ending with a pausal form may be marked with a conjunctive accent, arguably reﬂecting a diﬀerent division, as in Example 18 – Deuteronomy 5:1436

hT;a' hk;^al;m]Alk; hc,[}t' alø Ú˝yh≤-løa‘ hw:hyl' tB…`v' y[i+ybiV]˝h' μ~/yŸ˝w“ rv,a} Ú~˝r“ gE˝w“ Ú˝T,%m]h,B]Alk;˝w“ Ú⁄˝r“moêj}˝w" Úr“wvøw“ Ú˝t,m;a}˝w"·AÚD]b]['w“ ÚT,biWAÚn“biW .Ú˝/mêK; Ú`˝t]m;a}˝w" ÚD]b][' j"Wnÿy: ˆ['m'%l] Ú˝yr<+[;v]˝Bi The seventh (p) day (Z) is the Sabbath (t) of the Lord your God.(A) You shall not do any work:(pz) you, and your son and your daughter,(P ) and your manservant and your maidservant,(P,tl) and your ox, and your ass,(xP,g) and all your animals,(P,r) and your sojourner (xP,p) within your gates,(Z) 35 If the last word in such a unit is stressed on its ﬁrst syllable, a preﬁxed conjunction is typically vowelled with qames., as with the ‘minor’ pausal form in example 9, another eﬀect of the intonation contours of the reading tradition. See Revell 1981, 76-84. 36 The alternative accentuation traditionally marked in this passage treats the complete commandment (Deut. 5:12-15 in the numbering of BHS), as a single verse, so that diﬀerent accentuation is used at the beginning and end of this passage. In the list itself, however, the standard and the alternative accentuation are identical, as is the marking of pausal forms.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

87

so that (r) they can rest,(tv) your manservant and your maidservant,(xP,t) as do you.(S)

The grouping in units of two or three items customary in lists is maintained by the accentuation, and these units are logically grouped in larger divisions. The end of the list is marked by zaqef. The main divider of the list, revia, separates the sojourner from the others.37 The revia unit has four subdivisions. The ﬁrst, marked with pazer, presents the basic command. The second division, marked with teliˇsa, speciﬁes the humans represented by the pronoun ‘you’ in the command; the third division, marked with gereˇs, adds the animals kept for work, and the fourth adds the other animals. The list is also divided by pausal forms, but the division they mark differs somewhat from that represented by the accents. A pausal form marks the separation of the permanent residents in the family and their animals from the sojourner, as does the revia. The permanent human residents are separates into two groups, family and servants, by another pausal form, marked with the conjunctive munah.. However, the animals are treated as a single group; the word marked by gereˇs could be pausal in form, but is, in fact, contextual. It appears, then, that although accents and vowelling agreed in dividing the list into short units, they diﬀered in their understanding of the logical way to divide it. The distribution of pausal forms here does not indicate any great diﬀerence in interpretation from the arrangement presented by the accentuation, but it does suggest a diﬀerent tradition of reading. There seems no diﬃculty, in terms of the enunciation of the sounds, with the idea that a pausal form might be used with any accent, regardless of its value in the verse.38 However, a pausal form is used, as a rule, only with an accent marking a major division of a 37

The sojourner is an ‘outsider’, not a permanent member of the household. The similar list in Exod. 20:10 is divided at the same point by a pausal form, marked with zaqef, the main divider of the list, which separates the ‘sojourner’ from the permanent inhabitants of the unit. 38 Many pausal forms are distinguished by vowel changes which have already occurred in other words. E.g. in a 3ms perfect qal verb, the qames. arising from the original short *a in the ﬁnal syllable of the pausal form distinguishes it from the contextual form, where the reﬂex of the short *a is patah.. However qames. is the standard reﬂex of short *a in the ﬁnal syllable of the free (or ‘absolute’) form of nouns of the same phonological structure in all positions.

88

E.J. Revell

verse. It is unusual to ﬁnd such a form marked with a disjunctive indicating the end of a minor unit, or with a conjunctive, marking it as internal to a unit.39 It seems easier to believe that such anomalies result from minor changes in the reading tradition; that pausal forms did, originally, stand at the end of major divisions of the verse, as do the accents with which they are commonly marked, and that minor changes occurred in the internal division of some verses, resulting in the marking of some pausal forms with other accents. This view necessarily implies that the pausal forms had become ﬁxed in the reading tradition, but their value forgotten, before these supposed changes occurred. The likelihood of this is a matter of opinion, but it can be pointed out that the colometric writing of poetical passages was maintained in the text in a similar way, after it had lost its original value.

6 Summary and Conclusions It is argued here, then, that the basic purpose of the accent system was to represent the melody to which the text was chanted in formal presentation. This chant, which was probably derived from the contours of formal speech, was intended to beautify the presentation of the Biblical text, and to ensure that that presentation communicated clearly to the congregation the foundation of the traditional interpretation of the text. It achieved this in the same way as a message is communicated in ordinary speech: by dividing the text into units of meaning, and by using the music of the chant, in place of standard speech-contours, to show the relationship between the units, and to highlight those which deserve special consideration. At some point in the development of the reading tradition, pausal forms were developed at the ends of the major units into which it was divided, and became ﬁxed in the traditional pronunciation of the text. When the musical tradition was ﬁnally ﬁxed, the boundar39

The use of a conjunctive on a pausal form (about thirty possible examples) is not strikingly less common than the use of teliˇsa (Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; 7:13; 13:7; 1 Kgs 1:26; Ezek. 20:21), or gereˇs (eighteen examples). The lists from which these numbers were taken were intended to include all forms which might be considered ‘pausal’, so the lists for all accents include forms which are not certainly so. As few as eight of the listed examples of a pausal form marked with a conjunctive may be genuine pausal forms.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning

89

ies of the units it presented occasionally diﬀered from those marked by the pausal forms, reﬂecting minor diﬀerence in interpretation. The primary key to the basic interpretation represented by the accentuation is the hierarchy according to which the accents are used, which delineates the major semantic units composing a verse, and the subdivisions of which they are composed. The number of subdivisions marked is also of signiﬁcance; the use of short units, marked by many disjunctives, is a general indication that the passage so marked was considered particularly signiﬁcant. The second important key to the understanding of the accentuation is the relationship between the semantic units marked, and those of the syntactic structure. Boundaries marked by the major accents which do not coincide with the boundaries of the main syntactic units are a valuable indicator of the particular message being drawn from the passage, and consideration of them allows intelligent speculation on the motivation for the division. In many cases the semantic units marked by the accents are coterminous with those of the syntactic structure, as in example 5. Division of this sort is sometimes seen as the ‘expected’ or ‘logical’ use of the accents. After all, the syntactic structure is important as a vehicle for the meaning of language. However, it is unreasonable to argue that the main purpose of a speaker should be the clear presentation of the syntactic structure of a speech, an understanding of which is subconsciously ingrained in anyone ﬂuent in the language. A speaker typically attempts to present the semantic structures clearly, and to draw attention to those of particular signiﬁcance for the communication. I would argue that the same is true of the accentuation of the Biblical text. It is certainly true that the use of the accents can easily be explained in this way. The explanations oﬀered here cannot, of course, be shown to be correct. However, I believe that accentuation is treated in the way suggested, and interpreted with due consideration for the thought-world and probable motivations of the Masoretes, we will be as close as it is possible to get to a correct interpretation of its use.

Bibliography Ackermann 1893 – A. Ackermann, Das hermeneutische Element der biblischen Accentuation, Berlin 1893. Breuer 1982 – M. Breuer, t ma yrpsbw μyrps a kb arqmh ym[f (The Accents of the Bible in the 21 Books and the Three Books), Jerusalem 1982. De Hoop 2000 – R. de Hoop, ‘Lamentations: the Qinah-Metre Questioned’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 80-104. De Hoop 2003 – R. de Hoop, ‘Genesis 49 Revisited: The Poetic Structure of Jacob’s Testament and the Ancient Versions’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2003, 1-32. De Hoop 2003b – R. de Hoop, ‘Trichotomy in Masoretic Accentuation in Comparison with the Delimitation of Units in the Versions’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2003, 33-60. Dresher 1994 – B.E. Dresher, ‘The Prosodic Basis of the Tiberian Hebrew System of Accents’, Lg. 70 (1994), 1-52. Jo¨ uon & Muraoka 1993 – P. Jo¨ uon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (SubBi, 14), Rome 2 1993. Kogut 1994 – S. Kogut, twnçrpl μym[f ˆyb arqmh (Correlations between Biblical Accentuation and Traditional Jewish Exegesis), Jerusalem 1994. Korpel 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Introduction to the Series Pericope’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 1-50. Korpel & De Moor 1998 – M.C.A. Korpel, J.C. de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40-55 (OTS, 41), Leiden 1998. Korpel & Oesch 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000. Korpel & Oesch 2003 – M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature (Pericope, 4), Assen 2003.

The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning – Bibliography

91

Price 1990 – J.D. Price, The Syntax of the Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible, (SBEC, 27), Lewiston 1990. Revell 1981 – E.J. Revell, ‘Syntactic/Semantic Structure and the Reﬂexes of Original Short *a in Tiberian Pointing’, HAR 5 (1981), 75-100. Revell 1996 – E.J. Revell, The Designation of the Individual, Kampen 1996. Sanders 2000 – P. Sanders, ‘Ancient Colon Delimitations: 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18’, in: Korpel, Oesch 2000, 277-311. Sanders 2003 – P. Sanders, ‘Pausal Forms and the Delimitation of Cola in Biblical Hebrew Poetry’, in: Korpel, Oesch 2003, 264-78. Wickes 1887 – W. Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Twenty-One so-called Prose Books of the Old Testament, Oxford 1887. Yeivin 1980 – I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, Missoula 1980.

Graphic Devices Used by the Editors of Ancient and Mediaeval Manuscripts to Mark Verse-Lines in Classical Hebrew Poetry∗ Silviu Tatu Oxford – United Kingdom/Bucharest – Romania

1 Introduction In the search for particular devices that mark Classical Hebrew Poetry (henceforth, CHP), one would be amazed at the lack of consensus among Biblical scholars. They are not to be blamed since literary critics themselves have not reached an agreement on what makes poetry diﬀerent from prose. Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophical and literary schools, literary critics proposed diﬀerent solutions to this problematic issue, oscillating between form and essence (Brogan 1993, 1347-8). Greek expertise inﬁltrated Christian circles for the ﬁrst time through Biblical scholars of secular erudition, such as Origen, Augustine, Cyprian, the Cappadocian Fathers and others. During the Middle Ages, Greek philosophy was rediscovered and nurtured both in the monastic establishments of Western Europe and at the Oriental courts of enlightened Arab suzerains. In this context, the poetry of the Hebrew Bible (henceforth, HB) to which both Christian Scripture and Muslim Qˆ ur’an are indebted, was perceived naturally from the theoretical point of view of Graeco-Roman literary theory (Tatu 2006). Several preliminary clariﬁcations are important from the outset, most of which are terminological. First, since we are dealing mainly with poetry, we will prefer the term ‘verse-line’ to describe the subunit of a poetic verse, instead of the more popular terms colon or hemistich, for reasons detailed somewhere else (Tatu 2005). Theoretically, a poetic verse (monostich, distich, tristich, etc.) is not ∗

Acknowledgments are due to Dr Wilfred G.E. Watson (Newcastle upon Tyne) for reading this article and for suggesting improvements to both its style and bibliography.

Graphic Devices

93

always co-extensive with a textual verse (marked by Arabic numerals), which we call a ‘verset’. For the sake of consistency , we prefer the label ‘columnar arrangement’, for what others call ‘hemistichic’ or ‘colometric’. Secondly, to avoid confusion, when describing Mss we will use the terms ‘column’ and ‘row’ (instead of line) for the technical solutions used by the scribes to display their text on their papyri or scrolls. Wherever necessary, the reference is to the folio, distinguishing one side from the other using the terms ‘obverse’ (obv.) or ‘reverse’ (rev.). Thirdly, we prefer using the terms that describe the unwritten areas in a text with more speciﬁcity. Therefore, a ‘blank’ will describe an unwritten area one letter wide, a ‘space’ will correspond to a blank of two or three letters and a ‘gap’ will stand for a generous space, several letters wide. Fourthly, the poems outside the poetic books will be henceforth marked as follows: • v Jacob (‘The Song of Jacob’, Gen. 49:1-27) • v Sea (i.e. ‘The Song of the Sea’, Exod. 15:1b-19); • v Mosesa (‘The First Song of Moses’, Deut. 32:1-43);1 • v Mosesb (‘The Second Song of Moses’, Deut. 33:2-29); • v Deborah (‘Deborah’s Song’, Judg. 5:2-31); • v Hannah (‘The Song of Hannah’, 1 Sam. 2:1-10); • v David (‘The Song of David’, 2 Sam. 22:2-51).

2 The Ancient Witnesses With the introduction of Delimitation Criticism in 1999, Marjo C.A. Korpel and others2 succeeded in kindling a new interest in ancient 1 Also known as WnyzIa}h' after the ﬁrst word of the song, meaning ‘listen up!’ Some consider this poem Moses’ second poem, ‘The Song of the Sea’ being its precedent. Nonetheless, the text of Exodus 15 does not claim Mosaic authorship whereas the other two openly claim Moses as their author. Therefore, we consider Moses’ song in Deuteronomy 33 as his second song (v Mosesb ). 2 Cf. Korpel & Oesch 2000.

94

S. Tatu

biblical manuscripts (henceforth, Mss) in relation to exegesis. Obviously, prior to this, other institutions had in their focus the Masoretic studies in particular or textual criticism of the Old Testament in general. It might suﬃce to mention here the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (IOMS), founded in 1972, meeting quasi-regularly. Its proceedings have been published as part of the Masoretic Studies Series of Scholars Press since 1972. The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Series (IOSCS) follows a similar tradition. As for the textual tradition, one should notice right from the outset that it is diverse and spans hundreds of years of presence in various regions of the world and within various religious communities. The Masoretic tradition itself has two main branches: the western Masoretes (Babylonian) and the eastern Masoretes (SouthPalestinian), which produced a more recent development, the Tiberian (North-Palestinian),3 most likely under the inﬂuence of the Karaite movement.4 In the course of this article, we are going to survey some of the best texts produced by the Masoretic tradition, both of Babylonian and Palestinian origin, culminating with some of the best Tiberian Mss. For that reason, ancient documents found at Qumran and in the Cairo Geniza5 will appear alongside Hebrew documents from mediaeval times. The picture would not be complete without mentioning other versions, inspired by Jewish and Christian communities. Among them one should consider the Samaritan Pentateuch, and some of the ancient translations such as the ones into Greek (Septuagint), Aramaic (Targums), Syriac (Peshit.ta), and Latin (Vulgate). Since the Dead Sea Scrolls are older and the Samaritan Pentateuch is arguably dependent on Qumranic textual tradition, its value for the current study is limited to the editorial tradition concerning the lay3 Tov does not exclude the possibility that a transitional variant of the Tiberian system might have been created and used in Codex Reuchlin (Tov 2001a, 44-5). For diﬀerences between the systems of vocalisation see Tov 2001a, 44-6. 4 W¨ urthwein 1985, 12, 22-6, and Kahle 1959, 75-105. 5 By Mss in the Cairo Geniza here we mean ancient Hebrew Mss from the Palestinian and Babylonian Masoretic tradition. Saul Shaked oﬀers an updated bibliography of all the Geniza materials (Shaked 1964). Most of the Mss in these hoards are in Arabic.

Graphic Devices

95

out of poetic texts in non-poetic books, despite its value for textual criticism.6 Clearly, as we know it today, the Septuagint stands for a diverse tradition of translated versions of the HB into Greek as well as for its subsequent revisions both in the Jewish tradition (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Josephus) and the Christian tradition (Origen, Lucianus, Hesychia, etc.).7 Until recently, our knowledgeof these revisions was rather indirect, derived from allusions, quotations in Church Fathers (especially Origen’s Hexapla), or glosses to some biblical Mss. Lately, fragmentary Mss started to appear but still the information is rather scarce and scattered in diﬀerent libraries around the world.8 Of all these, the most relevant for our study would have been the lost Septima, if Jerome was correct when he appreciated it as containing the poetic books Job, Psalms, Lamentations and Canticles displayed in verse.9 The numerous Mss of Ì are generally grouped into uncials, cursives and papyri, and some of them will be surveyed here. Aramaic translations of the OT follow generally two main traditions: the Palestinian and the Babylonian. According to W¨ urthwein, the extant Targumic Mss contain material from diﬀerent periods (W¨ urthwein 1985, 80-1). Apparently, there are two Mss that seem to be of great value for our study: Ms Neoﬁti 1 (a complete Palestinian Targum) and Targum Onkelos (a Babylonian Targum), undoubtedly the most authoritative text for Judaism.10 In the case of poetic texts 6

W¨ urthwein 1985, 45-7, and Tov 2001a, 80-100. Cf. the classic textbook of Jellicoe (1968) and the more recent work by Fern´ andez Marcos (2000). 8 Fern´ andez Marcos 2000, 113-5, for Aquila Mss; pp. 127-8 for Symmachus Mss; pp. 145-6 for Theodotion Mss). 9 Jerome, Commentaria in epistolam Pauli ad Titum. 10 Alexander Sperber’s edition of the Targums reproduces the text of Ms Or 2363 (British Library) for the Pentateuch (Onkelos), Ms Or. 2210 (British Museum) for the Former Prophets (Jonathan), and Ms Or. 2211 (British Museum) for the Latter Prophets (Jonathan). Their alternatives, considered by some to be better, namely Ms Ebr. 448 – Neoﬁti (Vatican Library) for Onkelos Pentateuch, published by D´ıez Macho in his Madrid Polyglot (1988), and Ms 229 (E.M.C. 105) (Jewish Theological Seminary) for Jonathan Latter Prophets, do not aﬀect our study. A photocopy edition of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Codex Vatican – Neoﬁti 1) was produced by Makor Publishing House in Jerusalem (1970). 7

96

S. Tatu

disseminated among the non-poetic books, the Aramaic translation of the OT does not follow any of the patterns so common with other versions. As for the translation of the Hagiographa11 into Aramaic, Canticles, Lamentations, and Qohelet are the only poetic books included in Sperber’s fourth volume, but none of them displays any poetic layout.12 The Syriac translation of the OT (Peshit.ta) at its best, though not without error, must be Codex Ambrosianus (B. 21 Inf. of the Ambrosian Library in Milan),13 a sixth-seventh century Ms on which is based the new critical edition of the Peshit.ta begun in 1960 at the Peshit.ta Institute of the University of Leiden.14 Among the extant translations of antiquity, Jerome’s Vulgate enjoys a more than honourable position. Although the original rendering of the fourth century scholar might have been diluted in time through its numerous recensions, its recurrent principles remain evident through the ages. The most obvious reason for its value to our endeavour is the fact that Jerome translated the whole OT from the original Hebrew, a task that was probably completed after 16 years of labour (390-406 ce).15 11

The term Hagiographa refers to the Writings, the third section of the HB Canon. 12 This targumic version reproduces Ms Or. 2375 (British Museum). Volume 4A in Sperber’s Bible in Aramaic touches the text of the Hagiographa without engaging it critically as he did with the previous volumes. Unfortunately, the most important poetic books that attract our attention, namely Psalms and Job are not included in Sperber’s edition. Codex Urbinates (Ebr. 1 from the Urbinas Library in Vatican) contains the Targum of Megilot, but the poetic texts (Qohelet, Canticles, Lamentations) do not indicate any sign of verse division (cf. Levine 1977). Not even the Qumranic Targum of Job (11QtargumJob) marks the poetic lines, as far as one can see from the 28 fragments with so many lacunae (Garc´ıa Mart´ınez et al. 1998, 79-180). 13 Its photolitographic edition was published in 1876 by Antonius Maria Ceriani (Translatio Pescitto Veteris Testamenti). Texts not found in this codex were supplemented from other Mss (De Boer 1977, vii-viii). 14 Under the sponsorship of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament; cf. De Boer 1977, v-vi, preface. 15 Jerome produced at ﬁrst a revision of the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint (385 ce). It was called Psalterium Romanum because it was produced in Rome and accepted by the churches in the area. Three years later, he produced another revision, this time using Origen’s Hexaplaric Septuagint (387-388 ce). This one was known as Psalterium Gallicanum because the churches of Gaul accepted the version.

Graphic Devices

97

Regrettably, tempting though it is to continue the survey with the printed editions of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, this is impossible within the limits of a paper that has already promised to achieve too much. Further studies in this area might investigate whether modern editions of the Bible took into consideration the suggestions displayed by their ancient and mediaeval forerunners.

3 Blanks as Markers for Verse-Lines Once Milik started to reveal fragments of the Qumran Psalms,16 Revell was able to notice that spaces appear ‘to correspond either to verse divisions, or to the divisions within the verses which are marked by the major disjunctive accents in the Hebrew Bible’ (Revell 1971, 214). He revealed poetic fragments written in verse-lines in 17 the Nah.al H . ever Mss, 8Q2, the Masada Scroll and 1Q5. More occasional occurrences of spaces corresponding to disjunctive accents are also traced in 1QIsa 50:2 and 11QPsa .18 Revell concludes that ‘the normal practice in Qumran Biblical manuscripts is to mark divisions between words, but not between phrases or verses’ (Revell 1971, 215). Noticing the use of spaces for other reasons than dividing words, Tov’s comprehensive study of the writing practices displayed by the Dead Sea Scrolls allowed him to identify several main systems in which the poetic texts are arranged (Tov 2004, 171-3): • one verse-line per row (e.g. Deut. 32 in 4QDeutc , 4QDeutq , and Ps. 104 in 4QPsl ); • two verse-lines per row linked as one (e.g. Deut. 32 in 4QDeutb , Ps. 119 in 4QPsg , 4QPsh , Job 13 and 14 in 4QpaleoJobc ); • two verse-lines per row separated by spacing (e.g. Deut. 32 in 4QpaleoDeutr , Ps. 119 in 1QPsa , 5QPs, 11QPsb ); • verse-lines or clusters of several words separated by spacing (e.g. Exod. 15 in 4QRPc , Ps. 147 and 150 in MasPsb , and Prov. 9:13-15 in 4QProvb ). 16

4QPsq in Milik 1957. Their divisions correspond to atnah., ole weyored, but also revia, and s.innor in the Masoretic tradition. 18 The latter contains Ps. 119:18, 42, 139 and Ps. 122:4, 6. 17

98

S. Tatu

The Talmudic authorities do recognise the use of some visual patterns for setting oﬀ certain passages from the surrounding discourse, but a speciﬁc distinction is maintained. Thus, μyIm'V;h' WnyzIa}h' (v Moses a ) is not to display a similar arrangement to ‘the song of Moses’ (v Sea) (cf. Soferim 1.10). The Talmud ﬁrst refers to the arrangement to be followed for ‘the Song of David in Samuel and in the Psalms’ (2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18), and, by extension, for the texts in Psalms, Job and Proverbs. This implies alignment at three levels: at the beginning of the ﬁrst column, at the beginning of the second column, at the end of the second column (Soferim 13.1). We call this a ‘columnar arrangement’. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

A variant of this arrangement was considered ‘an indispensable condition’ for the display of the list of the kings of Canaan conquered by Joshua (Josh. 12:9-24) and the list of the ten sons of Haman (Est. 9:7-9). The sages called it ‘a half-brick over a half-brick and a brick over a brick’19 (Soferim 13.3-4). xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx

According to the Talmud, this arrangement is to be distinguished from another one used by all the other poems of the Bible, literally ‘all the songs’, that is a ‘half-brick over a whole brick, and a whole brick over half-brick’20 (b. Megillah 16b). This arrangement seems to have a primarily aesthetic function. Whether the divisions into ‘bricks’ and ‘logs’ followed a more strict verse division is still to be seen. We call this a chessboard arrangement (see next page). 19 Or in short ‘log over log, brick over brick’. Kugel 1981, 122, prefers the term ‘small brick over small brick, large over large’. 20 hnybl ybg l[ jyra, ‘log upon brick’. Cohen (1965) recommends the reading ‘blank’ for ‘whole brick’. The same pattern is labelled by Kugel (1981, 122) as ‘small brick over large brick, large over small’.

Graphic Devices

99

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Assuming that the saying of Rabbi Shila, quoted previously by baba Megillah, was intended to be precise, given the context wherein the list of Haman’s sons was in focus, one should conclude that he referred to the poems in the non-poetic books. Otherwise, one should assume that the rule promoted by the minor tractates was developed at a later date. This arrangement is indeed followed by Exod. 15:1b19 and Judg. 5:2-31. Apparently, the systems found by Tov at work in the Qumranic Mss have little in common with Talmudic structures, since the former had a prevalent colometric function whereas the latter had a rather aesthetic one. In particular, the running texts and those divided in verse-lines (one or two per row) do not seem to follow Rabbinic instructions (Tov 2004, 174-5). Berlin and Tov rightly entertain the idea that some of these scribal arrangements were present in Qumranic and Masoretic Mss,21 and this idea is going to be qualiﬁed in the following pages.

4 Hebrew Mss from Qumran The earliest documents of the HB known so far are the Mss discovered in various caves at Qumran and in the Judean Wilderness since 1947. Among them, there are many Mss of the Psalms too, most of them produced in the ﬁrst two centuries ce.22 Although it is fragmentary, the Mss in Cave 1 allowed Barth´elemy and Milik to identify texts arranged in rows with two verse-lines each, and enough space between consecutive verse-lines (1QDeutb [Deut. 32] 1QIsb , 1QPsa ).23 Other psalms (1QPsb , 1QPsc ), including portions of Psalms 126-128, and Psalm 44, respectively, do not 21

Berlin 1991, 8, and Tov 1996, 389. For a concise description, including bibliography, see Wilson 1985, 96-116, and Flint 1997, 31-47. 23 See plates XXII and XIII and the relevant comments in Barth´elemy & Milik 1955, 60, 66, 69. 22

100

S. Tatu

preserve the arrangement in rows just mentioned, though.24 Later on, when Mss found from Cave 2 were published, other poetic sections could be analysed, but still no regularity could be noted regarding the poetic layout. Whilst some Psalms passages (2QPs) are written in prose format, passages from the Pentateuch (2QGen, 2QExob , 2QNuma , 2QDeuta ), as well as passages from Ruth (2QRutha ) and Qohelet (2QEcc) follow a more reﬁned technique, being laid out in shorter rows of eight words per row. The above narrative texts still have variants set out in long rows (2QExoa , 2QNumb , 2QRuthb ; cf. Baillet et al. 1962, 48-77). Excerpts from the Latter Prophets indicate a preference for long rows too (e.g. 2QJer). Cave 3 did not add anything decisive toward the resolution of this issue. Although one psalm fragment (3QPs) seems to support a lineform for its verses, Lamentations is presented as an uninterrupted chain of words (3QLam; Baillet et al. 1962, 94-5). This is also the case for biblical Mss from Cave 6, where the length of the rows varies as follows: 18.2 cm (6QGen), 13 cm (6QDan), 16 cm (6QKi), 11.4 cm (6QPsa), 9.4 cm (6QLev), 9.3 cm (6QSong).25 Intriguingly, some relatively well conserved and reconstructed texts suggest a more careful handling. Cave 4 revealed a wealth of Mss of the poetic books (cf. Ulrich et al. 2000). The great majority of them, though, display the text in prose format (4QPsa,d,e,j,k,m,n q,s,t x , 4QPs122, 4QJobb , 4QCanta,b , 4QQoha,b ) with some Mss narrowing the column visibly (4QPsf,r , 4QLam). Two Mss preserving excerpts from Psalm 119 (4QPsg,h ) and another from Job (4QJoba ) follow a one verset/row approach without larger blanks between verse-lines. Only 4QPsc and 4QProva admit a ‘columnar arrangement’ of their poetic lines, separating the second verse-line from the ﬁrst one by a generous blank. The Masoretic text follows the stichometry of these texts closely. The most revolutionary approach to the ‘columnar display’ of the psalms discovered in this cave is apparent in 4QPsb , a large Ms with 36 columns conserving fragments from 15 Psalms (91-118). The Ms displays the Psalms with each verse-line on a new row (including 24

Cf. Barth´elemy & Milik 1955, 71-2, and the respective fragments on plate XIII. 25 Baillet et al. 1962, 105-16. Other samples of texts written in long lines are 5QDeut, 8QGen, but 5QKi, 5QPsa , 5QLam exhibit relatively short lines.

Graphic Devices

101

Ps. 118:27-29 on col. 36). Consequently, columns are narrower than usually. Psalm 118 (col. 34-35) stands as an exception to this rule, each row being occupied by a verset written as an uninterrupted catena (cf. Psalm 119). Psalm fragments from Cave 8, conserving Ps. 18:6-9, 10-13, also exhibit verse-lines divided by spaces. Another fragment (Ps. 17:5-9) uses spaces only to mark the beginning/closure of a verset but displays the text in prose format (Baillet et al. 1962, 148-9). Although the column that contained the rows of v Sea in 4QpaleoExodm is missing, scholars agree that a ‘columnar arrangement’ is more likely, given the prose format requirements of the adjacent texts and the space allowed for this particular missing passage (Skehan et al. 1992, 90). Another Ms of the same passage (4QExodc ) clearly betrays a prose format though (Ulrich 1994, 117-8). The Songs of Moses are better represented, even though fragments 35-44 of Ms 4QpaleoDeutr are very fragmentary. It seems more likely that vMosesa was written with a ‘columnar pattern’ but not so vMosesb (Shehan et al. 1992, 146-8). In another Ms (4QDeuth ), the excerpt from chapter 33 is displayed in prose format (Ulrich et al. 1995, 68). The longest Ms (it includes also non-narrative texts) proved to be the Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa ).26 From the twenty-eight columns preserved, twenty-one psalms were partially reconstructed, due both to the partial loss of the end of the scroll, being in an advanced state of decomposition, and inner disintegration of the threads which used to connect the sheets (cf. Sanders 1965, 4-6). From the large quantity of fragments preserving possibly 50 compositions, only 40 are of biblical origin.27 Wherever legible, the texture shows a continuous catena of words with blanks in between (prose format). No marker is used to signal the end of a verset; the new verset does not start a new row either. Psalm 119 is a signiﬁcant exception here (col. 6-14), because its preserved columns are arranged in a ‘columnar pattern’,28 in Flint’s 26

Previous studies cover Ps. 151 (Sanders 1963) and two non-canonical psalms (Sanders 1964), inter alia, although completed in 1962 or earlier. 27 Flint 1997, 40. The original description of the scroll admitted the presence of only 33 biblical psalms (93, 101-103, 105, 109, 118, 119, 121-130, 132-146, 148-150), four non-canonical psalms and Psalm 151 (Sanders 1962, 14). 28 This does not imply the division of verses into their respective lines, but writing on narrower columns of one verset each.

102

S. Tatu

opinion, an option justiﬁed in Flint’s opinion by its acrostic structure (Flint 1997, 40 n. 82). Looking more closely at some of the Mss, we notice that blanks are quite regularly located. 11QPs iii displays ﬁve major gaps in the texture as follows: 1. in row 4, where the Ms lacks the third occurrence of the tetragrammaton;29 2. in row 7, where a new psalm begins (Ps. 122);30 3. in row 10, the texture suﬀered severe damage, three words being completely erased; 4. in row 11, although two letters are slightly lighter than normal, they are still not missing, which makes the gap between them abnormal. We suspect here that the scribe avoided writing on the leather due to a technical problem. 5. ﬁnally in row 14, where the psalm actually comes to an end. Afterwards the text becomes unclear. Similar gaps in the texture are identiﬁed and centralized by J.A. Sanders. He traced 14 loci in the texture of 11QPsa where it seems that the scribe avoided writing in sequence for less certain reasons, which J.A. Sanders considers to be due to a technical problem similar to the one we referred to previously (see 8:3, 14:8, 15:2-3, 8-9, 18:6ﬀ, 20:3, 8 bis, 22:7-8, 23:8, 26:6, 13, 27:2-4, 28:10). Blank rows appear between consecutive psalms, and between consecutive strophes of Ps. 19 (col. 7-14). The beginning of a new psalm can be marked through indentation also (4:8, 5:9, 16:7, 23:7, 25:6, 26:4 – the introductory Hy:AWll]h' is missing, 27:12; cf. 3:7). Similar to the spacing in 3:4 there are others which are not explained by Sanders (8:6, 12:12, etc.), being considered irregularities (Sanders 1965, 14). 29 Another similar instance appears without any residual blank in line 6, which corresponds to Ps. 121:7 [˜]. Both situations are present in the textual apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 30 Here and elsewhere, ˜ stands for the Masoretic Text, i.e. the best and most complete Masoretic standard text identiﬁed to date, referring to the Ms of Codex Leningradensis (1008 ce).

Graphic Devices

103

Psalms from Cave 11 published later include a set of four, possibly ﬁve, documents and a total of 39 fragments covering excerpts from 33 psalms (Garc´ıa Mart´ınez et al. 1998, 29-78). Probably the most extensive Mss from this collection are 11QPsa fragment E (extending over three truncated columns, cf. plates iv-v), 11QPsc fragments 4-7 and 8. Although the width of the columns varies from one Ms to another, with the exception of 11QPse (possibly Ps. 50:3-7) that is much wider, all the other psalms fragments are written in columns 10-13 cm wide. Blank rows and gaps mark the beginning/closure of a psalm without highlighting its heading. In fragment 2 of 11QPsb that conserves the remains of Ps. 119:163-165, spaces appear between tentative verse-lines and blanks between subsequent words. It can be assumed that Psalm 119 was treated discriminately having its text divided in verse-lines by gaps.31 Although it is fragmentary, Flint considers 5/6H . evPsalms ‘one of the most substantial Psalms Mss in terms of material preserved’.32 There are no fewer than nine Psalms preserved in this ﬁrst century bce Ms (7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 23, 24, 29). The best preserved fragments (col. 4, 5, 6, 9, 11) allow one to identify the ‘columnar layout’ of the text, with the two verse-lines divided by a quasi-regular space of about 1 cm, with the occasional continuous catena, most likely due to longer verses; e.g. col. IV, lines 15, 16, 18, 28 and the rest, cf. Flint (2000a, 21). Although few are left intact, the verse division follows closely the Masoretic tradition.33

4.1

Early Greek Manuscripts

Tov surveys the scribal features of the ancient Greek Mss with the exception of the large codices (A, B, S, G; cf. Tov 2001b). Although 31

A similar sensitivity to division into sections appears to have been practised in other Mss that conserve remains of the book of Job (Garc´ıa Mart´ınez et al. 1998, 79-180). 32 Flint 2000a, 22, and also Flint 2000b, 137-66). 33 Ps. 9:13, 17, 19 (col. 4), Ps. 11:2, 3 (col. 5); Ps. 12:6-9 (col. 6); Ps. 15:1-3 (col. 7); Ps. 18:21, 23-28, 31, 34-35, 38-39, 41-43 (col. 9); Ps. 22:7-8, 18-20 (col. 11). Among exceptions one should consider Ps. 11:4 (col. 5, ll. 21-22); Ps. 18:30 (col. 9, ll. 15-16), 18:32-3 (ll. 18, 19), 18:36 (ll. 21-22), 18:40 (l. 25); Ps. 22:4-6 (col. 11, ll. 1-2), 22:9-11 (ll. 5-6), 15-17 (ll. 10-12). On a comparison of the layout of Psalms 1-14 in 5/6H . evPsalms with the Aleppo Codex, see Sanders 2002, 250-1.

104

S. Tatu

it is fragmentary, they ﬁll the time gap between Qumran Mss and the Greek codices, most of them being written prior to the fourth century ce. Out of the 71 Mss listed by Tov, 22 fragmentary Mss refer to poetic texts such as Psalms, Canticles, Proverbs, and Job. Nevertheless, the ‘columnar arrangement’ of the poems is noted in only half of them: • P. Antinoopolis 7 of Pss. 81-82 Ì (2nd century ce) • P. Leipzig 170 of Ps. 118 Ì (2nd-3rd century ce) • P. Vindob. Gr. 26035B of Pss. 68-69 Ì (3rd century ce) • P. Antinoopolis 8 of Prov. 5-10, 20 (3rd century ce) • P. Oxy. 1226 of Pss. 7-8 (3rd-4th century ce) • P. Berlin 18196 of Cant. 5-6 (4th century ce) • P. Flor. B.L. 1371 of Ps. 36 Ì (4th century ce) • P. Vindob. Gr. 35781 of Ps. 77 Ì (4th century ce) • P. Oxy. 845 of Pss. 68-70 Ì (4th-5th century ce) • P. Oxy. 2386 of Pss. 83-84 Ì (4th-5th century ce) • P. Damasc. VII of Cant. 2, 5 (4th-5th century ce) The Greek Codices of the Old Testament convey a more careful approach to the poetic text in general, and the Psalms in particular. The number of papyri is far too high to be surveyed in a paper this size, even though it might prove relevant for our conclusions.34 The oldest Septuagint Papyrus to date, John Rylands Greek Papyrus 458 (2nd century bce), consists of fragments of biblical texts from Deut. 23:24–24:3; 25:1-3; 26:12, 17-19; 28:31-33 laid out in four columns. Although it is written in Greek, it displays a text with its words separated by spaces, corresponding to the Hebrew disjunctive 34 Jellicoe (1968, 215-6) notes the continuing growth of this collection, of which an incomplete descriptive list runs to no fewer than 300 pages in Rahlfs 1914.

Graphic Devices

105

accents, most likely used as an expression of the liturgical reading of the Bible.35 There are three main uncial Mss36 preserved in a fragmentary state in diﬀerent academic centres: Codex Vaticanus (B),37 Codex Alexandrinus (A),38 and Codex Sinaiticus (S, or a),39 as well as many other very fragmentary uncial Mss covering only sections, certain biblical books, or even paragraphs from them.40 35

On this, Revell (1971, 219-22) concurs with Roberts (1936, 28), its earlier commentator. 36 For an abridged description of the Greek Mss of the Old Testament see W¨ urthwein (1985, 71-5) and Jellicoe (1968, 177-242). 37 Held by the Vatican Library (catalogue nr 1481), B is dated to the fourth century ce. Although it is the most complete codex, it lacks Gen. 1:1–46:28a, 2 Sam. 2:5-7, 10-13, Ps. 105:27–137:6b, Maccabees, and Heb. 9:14 onwards. It seems that the missing Psalms were added later. The general layout of the texture is identical with the one exhibited by the Codex Sinaiticus. 38 A was originally discovered and preserved in Alexandria by Cyril Lucar, formerly Bishop of Alexandria, lately Patriarch of Constantinople, and presented to King Charles I by the Patriarch in person. Eventually the text arrived in the British Museum, an event on which Hugh Miller commented with words of great appreciation. The importance of this document for the history of text transmission was considered to be that it represents the ‘ﬁrst attempt to break up the text into paragraphs; the initial letter of each such division stands out a little beyond the left-hand side of the columns’ (Miller 1934, 13). The text was printed for the public in a facsimile version with critical notes by F.G. Kenyon in several volumes (Kenyon 1915-1936). Several passages are lacking, such as Gen. 14:14-17; 15:1-5, 16-19; 16:6-9; 1 Sam. 12:20-14:9, and Ps. 49:19–79:10, Mat. 1:1–25:6; John 6:50–8:52; 2 Cor. 4:13–12:6. 39 S contains parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The Pentateuch, the historical books, Ezekiel, and Daniel are missing entirely or partially. The deutero-canonical books of Esther, Tobit, Judit, 1 and 4 Maccabees are present though (W¨ urthwein 1985, 73). Its fragments are held by the British Library (the main body, previously at the Public Library at St. Petersburg, and the Library of the Society of Ancient Literature at St. Petersburg), and the King Frederick Library at Leipzig (fragments). 40 Codex Ephraemi (contains Canticles, and the wisdom books), Codex Ambrosianus (contains the Hexateuch with many lacunae), Codex Lipsiensis (contains Numbers-Joshua), Codex Coislinianus (contains the text from Genesis to 1 Kgs 8:40 with lacunae), Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus (a quasi-complete 8th century Ms), ‘P’ (13th century Ms containing Pss. 71–81, 127–141), Codex Veronensis (contains the Psalter), Codex Turicensis (contains a fragmentary Psalter), Codex Parisiensis (fragments from Psalms), Codex Vaticanus Iobi (contains a fragmentary book of Job) to mention only the most relevant for the current study (Jellicoe 1968, 188-215).

106

S. Tatu

Although it is the most fragmentary of the three major uncials, Codex Sinaiticus stands out for the quality of its Psalm corpus.41 It is believed that Codex Sinaiticus was produced as early as the fourth century.42 The order of the books follows the Greek tradition, beginning with Psalms (folios 134-174) and continuing with Proverbs, Qohelet, Canticles, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Job. Each biblical book starts with a new column, and ends with a colophon. It seems that a later editor introduced the numbers of the chapters (including those of the Psalms) in letters with numerical value. The text runs as a continuous catena of uncials, without any blanks between the words. The text is arranged in four columns on each leaf, in most cases 48 rows per column. Nevertheless, the poetic books are treated differently, because they are written on two columns only, each row being coextensive with a verse-line. Although the end of the verset is not marked, each new verset starts a new row. There is one exceptional situation in which the end of the original verset is marked by double dots (:), because the last verse-unit of the previous verset was transposed to the following row (Ps. 67:11). Overlong verse-lines continue on an indented row, or even on two rows if necessary (cf. Ps. 1:1, 2, 3). If the remaining uncials are few, they are condensed to ﬁt in the same row as superscripts (1:4), sometimes they are even not transposed to the following row (2:9). Oversized verse 3 in Ps. 13 has the last six rows marked with a marginal i at the beginning of the row. Since the last rows are additions to the original Hebrew text, they were probably identiﬁed by a later corrector as such. Rows 17:20bA and 17:21A are marked similarly (folio 136 rev., col. i). The superscriptions are diﬀerentiated from the other rows, being indented with the same margin as the supplementary material of the poetic line. The last row of the psalm is marked with a marginal calligraphic T. It is very narrow in the case of Psalm 2, practically marking the line between the rows. In the case of Psalm 3, it marks 41 Regarding the Greek Psalter, internal evidence is quoted against the lack of written evidence to support the view that it was ﬁnished during the second half of the second century ce. For a recent article on the dating debate, with bibliographies for both sides, see Williams 2001. 42 According to Lake & Lake a terminus ad quem cannot be later than the seventh century ce (Lake 1922, x-xviii).

Graphic Devices

107

the superscript material as if it were the end of the previous psalm. The ordinal numerals that count the psalms appear only after the indented superscript material. diayalma is always placed at the beginning of an indented row. The tetragrammaton is abbreviated by writing the ﬁrst and the last uncials of the word (e.g. ku for kuriou, and k" for kurio", e.g. Ps. 2:7). In order to ﬁt the poetic lines into columns, abbreviation seems to be the preferred technique used by the editors of a. To avoid confusing the reader, the editors preferred to abbreviate only common words from the biblical jargon.43

4.2

Jerome’s Vulgate

By 393/4 ce, Jerome stated that his rendering of Psalms and Job had already been translated into Greek by his friend Sophronius (Epistle 49 ). It seems that after translating Samuel and Kings, Jerome completed the translation of the poetic books, followed by the sixteen prophets and Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles (394-5) ce. After a long interval, he resumed his work with Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (405 ce) and concluded with the Pentateuch (early 406 ce). His version of the Psalms is known as Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos (Brown 2003, 359-62). Unfortunately, Jerome’s Vulgate is not the coherent document one wishes it to be. The Catholic Church revised and republished Jerome’s translation several times during the centuries. Eventually 43

Thus a;nqrwpo" becomes ano" (Ps. 9:20; 21:7), dauid becomes dad (Ps. 17:1; 107:1), cristw/| becomes cw (Ps. 17:51; 19:7), swth,r becomes swr (Ps. 24:5), pneu/ma becomes pna (Ps. 30:6), israhl becomes ihl (Ps. 58:6A, 121:4A), Ierousalhm becomes ilhm (Ps. 121:2, 3, 6; 124:1). All abbreviations are marked with a superscript bar. Very frequent words, for example the conjunction kai, or the pronoun mou, are abbreviated by means of fancy scripts (e.g., Ps. 104:13 and 106:3, 107:7, respectively). Verb endings or noun case endings can be also abbreviated, by replacing the ﬁnal n with a superscript bar (16:9B, 10B). Sometimes uncials are joined together sharing a member of their grapheme (cf. fwnh/j mou, 17:7bA). Diﬃcult readings are sometimes noted with superscript letters (Ps. 17:9). If identiﬁed, added units are marked with overscripted dots (Ps. 104:19, 25; 105:23; 106:29; 107:11; 144:7), similar to puncta extraordinaria in the L (Gen. 33:4; 37:12). Missing material provided by later addition is signalled in the text by an arrow (), and written on the margin (upper or lower) (folios 134 rev., col. b; 137 rev., col. b; 143 obv., col. b; 145 obv., col. b; 150 obv., col. a).

108

S. Tatu

Pope Pius X decided to entrust the Benedictines with the project of recuperating the original from more than 8000 known Mss of this translation and produce a critical edition of Jerome’s translation into Latin. The ﬁrst results were published in 1926 with the printing of Genesis.44 Throughout the many volumes of this work, the editors conserved a clear sense of the rhythm the translator must have had by dividing each verset into its sense units as lines. Since the text is displayed on two columns, every line longer than a row is indented, so that every true line starts at the beginning of the row. For this reason, one cannot notice any diﬀerence in handling the poems outside the t ma books,45 other than a more vivid cadence due to the more rhythmical nature of those texts. They are shorter than prose versets and generally consist of a distich, with its two members transparent in most cases. Strangely, Job does not follow this rule, having a new row for each verset with the exception of the narrative prologue (ch. 1-2) and epilogue (ch. 42).46 Apparently, Proverbs follows a similar tendency, but Qohelet and Canticles display an increased number of versets divided into more verse-lines,47 whereas Lamentations prefers to split its versets into verse-lines with the exception of chapters 3 and 5, which are maintained unchanged due to the alphabetical acrostic. Henri Marcotte de Sainte-Marie, a French Benedictine, prepared a critical edition of the Psalms (1954). For this achievement to be completed, the author examined eighty-ﬁve Mss, of which the most important nineteen are presented brieﬂy in the introduction (pp. vi-x). Marcotte is of the opinion that the Mss resemble each other, but there are characteristics that allow one to categorize them into 44

This was a long process completed only in 1995 with the publication of the critical edition of the book of Maccabees. 45 In the HB Canon, the books of Psalms, Job and Proverbs are also known as ‘the books of Truth’, the ﬁrst letter of each of the three books forming the acronym t ma, meaning ‘truth’. Henceforth, t ma. Their order is not rigid, but varies. 46 There are a few exceptions: 3:4-6, 9, 11; 4:5, 19-20; 7:5, 20-21; 11:6; 13:15-16; 14:5, 11-14, 20; 15:30; 16:4, 7, 10, 13-14; 18:2, 4; 19:27; 20:18, 20, 25-26; 24:23; 26:14; 27:5; 28:3, 18; 29:25; 30:2-3, 12, 26; 31:34; 32:2, 6, 12; 34:33, 37; 36:16; 37:12; 41:14. 47 One could count 97 verses split into lines in Qohelet, and 50 in Canticles.

Graphic Devices

109

four families: Roman, French, Spanish, and Irish. Since there were contacts between them, few Mss preserved the subsequent tradition in its pure form. It seems that the Roman tradition inspired the rest (pp. xiii-xxviii). To these four families, Loewe (1969, 113-4) adds three more: the Anglo-Saxon, Languedoc and Swiss families. Except in Gaul, where the Old Latin survived alongside Jerome’s rendering, in the other regions the two traditions are mixed. Many scholars revised the Psalter during the Middle Ages. The contributions of these editors are, in most cases, added as marginal notes.48 Loewe (1969, Fig. I) argues that the mediaeval recensions of Theodulf and Alcuin are among the best quality reconstructions of Jerome’s iuxta Hebraeous translation. When compared to the previous editions (Psalterium Romanum and the Psalterium Gallicanum), Jerome’s new translation from the Hebrew proves to build on their tradition, preference being given to the latter (Marcotte 1954, lv-lxi). A continuous inﬂuence can be documented between the primary Jerome’s revision on one hand and his ﬁnal translation on the other (Marcotte 1954, lxi-lxiii). Psalterium iuxta Hebraeorum was published simultaneously. Marcotte himself identiﬁed no fewer than ten editions.49 The text displayed by Marcotte indicates several characteristics. It marks the psalms following the Hebrew tradition, against the regular use of Ì in the later Vulgate edition. Versets are marked according to the Clementine Vulgate. Versiﬁcation reproduces the 48

Theodulf prompted the ﬁrst mediaeval tradition of the Jerome Psalter, the result being the Bible of Saint-Hubert (9th century ce), followed by Alcuin and two other anonymous revisers. A tradition of double, triple, or even quadruple Latin Psalters sprang up during this period. This is another proof of the diversity of Mss in circulation (Marcotte 1954, xxix-xliii). There are also noted two commentaries on the Psalms, belonging to Herbert von Bosham (12th-13th century ce), and Nicolas Trivet († 1330). Jerome himself and other Church Fathers quoting the Psalms used diﬀerent textual traditions, proving that the use of the new Latin translation was not uniform (Marcotte 1954, xlvi-liii). 49 One published in 1475 in Augsburg by Gunther Zainer, another in 1497 in Venice by Jean and Gr´egoire de Gregoriis, and others in 1506 in Salamanca by ´ I. Gisser, in 1509 in Paris by J. Lef`evre d’Etaples, in 1516-1520 in Amerbach by Erasmus, in 1565-1572 in Rome by Marianus Victorius, in 1693-1706 in Paris by Jean Martianay, in 1738 in Verona by D. Vallarsi, in 1874 in Leipzig by P. de Lagarde, and in 1922 in London by J.M. Harden (Marcotte 1954, lxiv-lxvii).

110

S. Tatu

tradition established by comparative study of four Mss: R,50 C,51 A,52 and QH .53 When the editor does not follow the original rendering, he mentions in the footnotes which Ms was preferred instead. Semper, the Latin equivalent for the Heb. Sela, appears at the end of the row, divided from the rest of the verse-line by a gap. Superscriptions are always included at the head of the psalm and the Hebrew tradition of separating Ps. 9 from Ps. 10 is followed. The original notes of Theodulf are included as footnotes too.

4.3

Preliminary Conclusions

Given the fragmentary state of Psalms Mss, their diversity in terms of scribal paternity and the various functions they might have been serving, we consider it safe to conclude that in the Qumran Mss, spacing was chieﬂy used as a paragraph marker, to separate consecutive psalms, whether they follow the canonical sequence or not. In exceptional cases, a blank row is used to delimit larger poetic units, such as strophes (cf. Psalm 119) or monologues (cf. Job). Rarely, poems are arranged in columns of 3-6 verse-units each,54 narrower than those used in prose format, which is predominant among the psalms fragments.55 Occasionally, gaps are involved in delimiting consecutive verse-lines.56 In other Mss it seems that gaps are used more for aesthetic reasons, as they are placed not only after verselines, but every 2-3 words.57 The use of verse division techniques only in some of the Mss from the Judean Desert, its presence in the t ma books and poems from the Torah (v Sea, v Mosesa ) but not 50

R is an 8th century Ms of a double uncial Psalter from Northern France (Marcotte 1954, vi). 51 C is a 14th century Ms of a complete minuscule Bible from Cava (Marcotte 1954, vii). 52 A is an 8th century Ms of a complete uncial Bible from Florence (Marcotte 1954, vii). 53 H Q is a 9th century Ms of a complete minuscule Bible from France, Saint Hubert (Marcotte 1954, viii). 54 E.g. 1QPsa , 3QPs, 4QPsb , 4QPsg , 4QPsh , 4QPsl , 5QPs, 8QPs, MasPsa . 55 Flint 1997, 49. Tov also accepts this type of columnar arrangement, but adds 4QDeutq , and with some probability also 4QDeutc and 4QpaleoJob (cf. Tov 1996, 389). 56 4QDeutb , 4QpaleoDeutr , 4QLam, 8QPs, 5/6HevPs, MasSir, but also in 1QDeutb , 1QIsb , 1QPsa , 3QPs, 4QPsc , 11QPsb II. 57 E.g. MasPsb , 4Qprova,b , 4QRPc [Exod. 15].

Graphic Devices

111

in non-biblical poems, the Prophetic books, or the other poems of the Bible (v Jacob, v Mosesb , v Hannah, v David), might be the mere reﬂection of liturgical poetry.58 The scribes of the ancient Greek Mss had a ﬁne perception of parallelism as a major descriptor of CHP. Particularly those responsible for the writing of Codex Sinaiticus introduced the technique of versiﬁcation into the scribal arsenal. Even when the division between words was not marked by blanks, for the ﬁrst time, versiﬁcation allowed a clear division of the poems in their respective verse-lines, one verse-line per row. One can infer that the scribes cultivated in more depth an awareness of the Hebrew Mss,59 as one can notice in the technique applied in 4QPsb . Given the large number of Mss that did not apply these techniques though, it seems that the tradition of writing CHP in verse-lines is not yet settled.60 Jerome’s Vulgate does indicate a sense of rhythm speciﬁc to the Hebrew Bible, as noted later by the Masoretes too.61 Of the many poetic books, only Psalms, Canticles and Lamentations display a keen interest for its poetic structure, making use of the technique of versiﬁcation, starting each new verse-line with a new row. No aesthetic structures could be traced, given the very conservative approach to writing the text on two columns applied throughout Vulgate.

5 Symbols as Markers for Verse-lines The custom of marking verse-units with dots is well represented by Greek, Syriac, and Samaritan textual traditions.

5.1

Papyrus Bodmer XXIV

The third-fourth century Ms, a fragmentary copy of the Psalms in Greek (Ì) from Egypt, consists of 82 folios covering Ps. 17:45– 118:44 (with lacunae).62 If the beginning of a new psalm occurs 58

Tov 2004, 166-170, following Oesch 1983. Tov 2004, 311, and the previous table from Appendix 5. 60 Cf. Tov’s list of Greek Mss with continuous catenae without any indication of verse-lines limits (2004, 313). 61 For a study of text division in Jerome’s Commentaries see now De Bruin 2005. 62 Cf. Kenyon 1900. Of comparable interest could have been BM Papyrus 230 59

112

S. Tatu

in the middle of a row, it is marked by a horizontal chevron (>), sometimes doubled (>>), or it is preceded by series of double dots (: : : >). Strophes can be marked by diayalma when it appears in the text, even preceded by a gap.63 A double dot (:) can be used to mark both the end of a verse and the end of a verse-line. A superscript dot (.) appears to be used for a similar reason only at the beginning of the papyri (folios 1-7, up to row 26), but not later in the text, as if two hands were at work.64 The verse division of Bodmer XXIV seems to ﬁt the Masoretic tradition.65 Occasionally, some Greek Mss prefer to replace the dot with one or two oblique strokes.66

5.2

Codex Alexandrinus

An incomplete ﬁfth century Ms, it preserves all the poems in the non-poetic books. The Ms displays the text as a continuous catena of uncials on two columns with an average of ﬁfty rows per column.67 There are diﬀerent techniques used to divide the text into verses: one letter blanks, two/three letters blanks, end of row left unwritten (equivalent to several letters), and starting with a new row, supplemented occasionally by marking the beginning of a new row with an enlarged uncial in the margin.68 Genealogies are written on two columns (e.g. Gen. 36:15b-17, 29-30, 40b-43a). On closer inspection, one can notice that poems are indeed divided into verse-lines. Although the two-column page layout is pre(dated late 3rd century) containing Ps. 11:7–14:4, Leipzig Papyrus (a 4th century papyrus roll of 34 columns containing Ps. 30-55 with lacunae), the papyri in the Rainer collection (4th-6th century fragments of Psalms). Revell noticed also that Papyrus Fouad (inv. 226), a Greek Pentateuchal Ms, displays diﬀerent techniques to mark paragraphs and even verse-lines (Revell 1971, 216-8). 63 The general use of gaps to mark divisions is not entirely clear, given the variety of situations involved (cf. Kasser & Testuz 1967, 16 and n. 7). 64 Kasser & Testuz 1967, 14-5. 65 Other early Greek Mss that use dots to mark verse-lines are listed by Tov (2004, 311-2), such as P. Antinoopolis 9 of Prov. 2–3, P. Berlin 11778 (BKT 8.17) of Job 33–34, P. Mil. 13 of Sir. 3, P. Genova P.U.G. 1 of Pss. 21–23, P. Flor. B.L.980 of Pss. 143–148, P. Hamb, bil 1 of Sir. 3-4, P. Oxy. 11.1352 of Pss. 82–83, P. Vindob Gr. 29274 of Ps. 23. 66 E.g. P. Vindob. Gr. 39786 of Ps. 9 (one stroke), Louvre MND 552 H-L of Ps. 146, P. Oxy 24.2386 of Pss. 83–84 (two strokes). 67 Some pages have 51 or 49 lines per column. 68 The use of enlarged uncials is not restricted to the ﬁrst letter of verses.

Graphic Devices

113

served throughout the whole Ms, suddenly, when the editor reaches the poems, the paragraphing technique is involved at the level of verse-lines. Blanks appear to divide the verse-lines in v Jacob, but of the three columns the poem is displayed on, only one is clear enough to allow careful observations (folio 33 obv., col. 1).69 A new verse can start after a space or with a new row, leaving the rest of the previous row unwritten.70 Every new verse-line is marked by an enlarged uncial written a fraction outside the margin, a technique used as a paragraph marker in non-poetic books. At least this is the case with poems like v Sea (folio 43),71 v Mosesa (folios 122 rev., 123 obv.), and v Hannah (folio 161 rev.). Other poems, such as v Mosesb (folio 123) and v Deborah (folio 144 rev., 145 obv.) do not follow this technique strictly, enlarged uncials being used only to mark larger text units. There is a clear tendency, though, to start each new verse-line with a new row or leave spaces before those that start in the middle of the row. v David (ﬀ. 196 obv.-197 obv.) and even 1 Chron. 16:8-36 (folio 249 rev.) use enlarged uncials, but not necessarily for strophes.72 Instead, the editor preferred to mark the end of each verse-line with a dot, whenever this happened at the middle of the row. Unless obstructed by such a dot, the catena of uncials runs continuously within the limits of each column, without any blanks. Only when starting a new row with an enlarged uncial, the row is left incomplete.73 Frequently, apart from pronouns or divine names that are regularly abbreviated, long words that do not ﬁt in one row are continued in the following one. There is only one instance when equal dots are used and that is in the middle of a row in v Hannah.74 69 Such blanks (equivalent to one letter) can be traced on line 5 (12A B), line 8 (13A B), line 14 (15A B), line 19 (15B 16A), line 36 (22 23), line 40 (24A B), and on lines 46, 48, and 49 (25A B C D). 70 See lines 3 (before v. 12), 6 (before v. 13), 10 (before v. 14), 17 (before v. 16), 24 (before v. 19), 27 (before v. 20), 30 (before v. 21), 32 (before v. 22), 43 (before v. 25). 71 In a few instances, the verse-line can begin in the middle of the row, but even then it is marked by a blank (folio 43 obv., col. 2, lines 11, 15, 28, 45; folio 43 rev., col. 1, line 5, 8). 72 2 Sam. 22:2, 3 (3x), 4, 14, 26, 36, 47, 50. 73 Folio 196 obv.: col. 2 line 43 (2 Sam. 22:2), col. 2 lines 45 and 48 (22:3); folio 196 rev.: col. 1 line 28 (22:13), col. 1 line 11 (22:25), col. 1 line 37 (22:35), col. 2 line 25 (22:49), col. 2 line 32 (22:51). 74 Folio 161 rev., col. 2, line 36 (1 Sam. 2:10).

114

S. Tatu

Psalms resemble the arrangement previously noted in Codex Sinaiticus.75 Oversized capitals are used to mark the beginning of each new psalm (the ﬁrst letter of its very ﬁrst word after the superscription).76 In fact, this is the only marker allowing the reader to notice the beginning of a new poem. Not even the extra-long Psalm 118 [Ps. 119] employs it, since oversize capitals appear only in several instances (vv. 1, 41b, 96b), the last two at the head of a new column as if to mark each third whole column of the poem. Occasionally, such letters can be used to mark poetic sections of some sort (strophe?) (e.g. 19:5, 7b [20:5, 7b]). diavyalma is placed on a new row, starting at the middle of the column (e.g. Ps. 2:2; 9:21; 19:4 [20:4]), or divided from the catena of uncials by a space (e.g. Ps. 3:3, 5; 4:3, 5; 7:6). The texture of each poem is divided into verse-lines, occasionally shorter than the width of the column, but quite frequently longer, for which reason they need to continue in the following row(s). When that happens, the rows continuing the main poetic line are indented. Of the 23 Psalms on 12 folios studied closely, totalling nearly 700 verse-lines in Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus is 12 verselines shorter. The main loss comes from Ps. 13:3, which is only two verse-lines long in the latter, whereas the former has eight more verse-lines. Thirteen verse-lines are divided into two and seventeen are conjoined. This might signify a diﬀerent textual tradition that Codex Alexandrinus follows, but it will suﬃce to say in this context that, by its delimitation of Psalms, it does demonstrate a perception of poetry common among early biblical Mss.

5.3

Peshit.ta

Peshit.ta uses several similar conventions to mark text and sense units. Clusters mark paragraphs in the Pentateuch and the Prophets. A bold point on the line (.) marks the end of larger or smaller divisions of the sentence. It can be accompanied by an ‘under point’ (.), an ‘upper point’ (.), or ‘equal points’ (:) to indicate diﬀerent clauses of the sentence of greater or less importance.77 75 For a facsimile edition of the Psalms see Baber 1812. The Ms is fragmentary though, lacking Ps. 49:20-79:11 except ta;" kevdrou" tou' qeou'. 76 This technique creates the appearance that the superscriptions are not part of the psalm itself, but belong to the previous poem as a colophon. 77 Cf. the description by Jenner 1999, 111-123. Supplementary accents were

Graphic Devices

115

In Psalms, the transition from one poem to another is marked on the margin. One additional psalm is added at the end of the collection, Pss. 9 and 10 are joined, and Ps. 146 is split into two (vv. 1-11 as Ps. 146 and vv. 12-20 as Ps. 147). Within the text, provided that the new psalm does not start with a new column (Ps. 61 [62]; 94 [95]; 134 [135]), clusters are involved in marking the end of the last verse of one psalm and the end of the ﬁrst verse of the following one.78 By this double marking, the transition from one Psalm to another is very clear. Clusters are also used to contain the Sela by marking both its ends. Strophes of Psalm 118 [119] are marked on the margins with letters of the alphabet. A continuous wavy line with embellishments marks the Book divisions of the Psalter. The bold point on the line (.) is preferred in marking sense divisions in the poetic books too, where verses are more balanced and generally reduced to two verse-lines.79 With the exception of long verse-lines, which cross over to the following row, the verse-lines are conﬁned to only one row. Job, Proverbs, Qohelet, Canticles, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach follow the versiﬁcation pattern. Occasionally, equal dots replace the point on the line (e.g. Job 31:4-8, 19-21).

5.4

The Samaritan Pentateuch

Unfortunately, the extant manuscripts of this document are rather recent in comparison with other ancient texts. One of its most complete and for that reason most valuable extant manuscripts is Ms No 6 in Shekhem, copied only in 1204 ce.80 It does not indicate any attention to poetic layout, since none of the Pentateuch’s poems display the poetic layout speciﬁc to poetic texts.81 There are some provided to diﬀerentiate between stronger and weaker pronunciation (N¨ oldeke 1904, 6 and 12). 78 Exceptions: 2:1; 9:1 (Ps. 9 is joined with Ps. 10); 17:1 [18:1]; 28:1 [29:1]; 37:1 [38:1]. 79 Variations in the number of verse-lines in CHP correspond to those in Peshit.ta if one considers the numerical verses (Prov. 30:15, 16, 19, 20, 33), various tristichs in Psalms (1:1, 3; 2:2, 7; 3:8; 4:2 ... 110:3, 4; 111:9, 10; 112:9, 10; etc.) or a double distich (Ps. 2:12). 80 Although other slightly more recent texts were available, this Ms is reproduced by Abraham Tal’s edition of The Samaritan Pentateuch (1994, cf. p. v). 81 Later editions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, like most of the ones consulted by A.F. von Gall for his critical edition, prefer to display Exod. 15 and Deut. 32 in verse-lines though (cf. Von Gall 1918). Most of Von Gall’s Mss are dated to

116

S. Tatu

important clues, though, as to the verse division of these poems. Paragraphs are marked clearly by qis..sh in combination with a completely empty row (Tov 2003, 480-1). The end of a colon is marked by equal dots (:),82 not so frequent in v Mosesb , and supplemented by a double dot superscripted at the end of the last word of the respective colon (.. ), but lacking entirely in v Sea and very rare in v Mosesa . When both appear in a text, equal dots play the role of the principal disjunctive accent, dividing a long verse into its respective halves. Superscript double dots function as a secondary disjunctive accent, dividing the halves into quarters,83 marking a caesura or an introduction to speech,84 or even function as a major disjunctive accent.85 Comparing the division suggested by the Samaritan Pentateuch with the Masoretic tradition, one can notice that, although they ﬁt in the majority of cases (≈ 70%) there are still numerous instances where they diﬀer (≈ 30%).

5.5

Preliminary Conclusions

Several textual traditions such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, Peshit.ta and Codex Alexandrinus, among others, seem to rely on a system of dots to mark their verse-lines. Whatever the ancients understood them to mean, these signs could serve to divide otherwise continuous catenae of letters or words into smaller sense-units. Their resemblance to the verse-lines from the Masoretic tradition and the speciﬁcity they display when used in biblical poems indicate that these sense-units must have been perceived as verse-lines. Such a systematic use of dots might lead to the conclusion that a new tradition of marking sense-units was in the making as early as the third century ce.

the 14th century or later. 82 We prefer this term to Tov’s ‘dicolon’ in order to avoid confusion with other poetic terminology that implies similar terms but for diﬀerent entities (e.g. colon/cola, bicola, etc.). 83 Gen. 49:3, 7, 22, 28; Deut. 32:36, 46; Deut. 33:2, 3, 17, 21. 84 Gen. 49:1, 5, 8, 13, 17, 29; Deut. 33:2, 8, 12, 13, 18, 20. 85 Gen. 49:2, 4, 10, 12, 15 17 (end of verse); Deut. 32:38, 42-44, 48, 52; 33; Deut. 33:5, 18, 19, 27.

Graphic Devices

117

6 Graphemes as Markers for Verse-Lines The Tiberian Masoretes were the indisputable masters of this technique. One of the ﬁrst studies of verse-lines division of poems in CHP to consider the ancient Mss data was by Paul Sanders (1996). Applied to v Mosesa , the monograph investigates ‘traditional colometric delimitations’ as he called them. He included in this overview the Damascus Pentateuch, Codex Aleppo, Codex Leningradensis, the Septuagint,86 and the Peshit.ta. In terms of the Masoretic tradition, Paul Sanders approached the verse delimitation from two perspectives: accents and pausal forms. Revell noticed that there is a connection between the Masoretic pausal forms and the Qumranic tradition of writing Psalms in verselines, although occasionally they disagree (Revell 1981, 193). Presumably, this link reﬂects older poetic traditions received from Akkadian literature via Semitic languages (e.g. Ugaritic) that remained unchanged for the whole biblical period, of which the apocryphal materials in 11QPsa is a good example, but left to us by the mediaeval tradition of CHP (Revell 1981, 196-7). The tradition of dividing lists into groups of two or three items (Revell 1981, 171) permeates CHP when enumeration appears in the poetic line (Revell 1981, 193). The following section attempts to investigate documents produced by this community of scribes and scholars, but only after earlier Mss are given priority.

6.1 Early Biblical Manuscripts With Pre-Tiberian Vocalization Following Yeivin, D´ıez Macho organized the Babylonian Mss into three classes, corresponding to Yeivin’s III-V list, that is ancient Babylonian, middle Babylonian, and recent Babylonian (D´ıez Macho 1971, 50-60). Most of the Cairo Geniza biblical Mss ﬁt into category III. Apparently, they were discarded and stored awaiting funerals to ensure the success of the Tiberian Masoretic system. (Kahle 1959, 57-66). Ms 508A can be considered a good example of class IV (middle) Babylonian Mss. Fewer Mss from the Cairo Geniza ﬁt the description of class V (recent) (D´ıez Macho 1957b, 264ﬀ.; Idem 1957c). 86

Several codices are surveyed: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Washington Codex, and Papyrus Fouad.

118

S. Tatu

Among the biblical fragments of the Cairo Geniza that Kahle reported, most poetic texts originate in Psalms, or Job, and some in the other poetic books.87 Their most obvious characteristic is the division of verses into poetic lines coextensive with verse-lines. From a structural perspective this option prompted a two-column arrangement, each of the members corresponding to a semantic unit marked by atnah.. Although some other Mss would have been of value for the study of BH poems outside the poetic books,88 the list of Mss containing material from the poetic books might include the following: • Berlin Ms or qu 680,89 • Oxford Ms Heb d 3747−50 ,90 • Oxford Ms heb b 4,91 • Cambridge Ms A 383 ,92 • Cambridge Ms A 3920 ,93 • Cambridge 3921 ,94 • Cambridge Westminster,95 87

Kahle 1913, 49-81. Later on, he revises and updates his list after discovering more Mss from the Babylonian tradition in the libraries from Cambridge, Oxford, Leningrad and elsewhere (cf. the bibliography in Kahle 1928, 120-32). Except for Psalms and Job, the other poetic books do not use the poetic layout. 88 Cambridge B 44 (Gen. 49:6-50:2), Cambridge A 392 (Exod. 10:27–12:18; 14:27-16:3), Cambridge B 45 (Exod. 11:1–12:6; 12:6-19; 15:15-19), Cambridge B 422 (Deut. 33:7-34:6; cf. Kahle 1928, plate 33). 89 Out of its 94 leaves covering the Hagiographa with lacunae, seven belong to the Glaser-Sammlung collection in New York. 90 It covers Ps. 19:2–26:11 (cf. Plate 10 in Kahle 1913), being continued by Cambridge A 3913 with its three folios covering Ps. 65:1–66:13; 83:12–85:7; 99:8103:7. 91 Two folios (35, 36), covering Ps. 33:16-35:4; 40:4–41:7 (cf. Kahle 1913, plate 8). 92 One folio containing Ps. 22:13–23:2; 24:2-25:12 (cf. Kahle 1928, plate 56). Especially Ps. 23:1-4 since Ps. 22:13-32 is very fragmentary. 93 One folio containing Job 37:12-38:36 (cf. Kahle 1913, folio 9). 94 Fragmentary four folios containing Ps. 87:4–89:30; 105:20–106:35; 129:1134:1; 143:4–146:10 (cf. Kahle 1928, plate 63). 95 One folio containing Ps. 109:9–111:9.

Graphic Devices

119

• Cambridge Ms A 3912 ,96 • Petersburg Ms Firk. II 5,97 • Petersburg Ms Firk. II 1546,98 • New York 2107 fol. 16-18,99 • London Or 2373.100 Job Mss follow more closely the Masoretic division, since each verse is regularly split into verse-lines. Another main characteristic of these texts is the placement of direct speech formulae at the centre of the page.101 Parchment (Ms T.-S. 20/58) 20 cm high and 10 cm wide, displayed on two fragmentary columns, contains Ps. 41:5-46:12.102 The editor of Psalm 41 clearly attempted to divide the verses into their respective verse-lines, having the second half starting a new row alongside the ﬁrst verse-line of the subsequent verse. At times, especially when the verse is unnaturally long (e.g. 41:7-8, 10), but not necessarily (cf. 41:11), the division produces unbalanced verse-lines. The last three verse-units are aligned towards the extremities of the ﬁnal row (2:1), marking the end of the psalm. 96

Only the bottom of six folios survived, containing fragments from Psalms and Job (Ps. 10:13-18; 12:1-7; 118:12-14; 118:28–119:3; 119:76-82, 92-99; Job 5:46, 22-24; 26:2-4; 27:6-8; 40:10-15; 40:28-41:1; cf. Kahle 1913, plate 9; Kahle 1928, plate 78). 97 Seventy-one folios containing various fragments from Psalms (fol. 1-56), Job 35:10-end (fol. 57-67), and Proverbs (fol. 67-71) (cf. Kahle 1928, plate 16). 98 Four folios containing Job 2:11-9:32 (cf. Kahle 1913, plate 1). For a hand copy of the Ms, see Von Weerts (1906, 76-84), displaying a clear arrangement on two columns, each coextensive with a verse-line of its respective verse. The introductions to speech appear as titles, inthe middle of the page. 99 Three folios containing Job 1:5–3:4; 10:5–11:16. 100 Another fragmentary Ms of the Hagiographa. 101 Or qu 680 is an exception. 102 Allony & D´ıez Macho 1958a, 90-94. The same Ms appears in the ﬁrst part of Murtonen’s work (1958, 38-44 of the Hebrew part). One year later, Allony and D´ıez Macho (1959) published the diﬀerences between the two readings of the Ms and Murtonen was to take note of them in the third volume of his work (1964, 16-21). However, the diﬀerences between the two documents do not aﬀect our conclusions.

120

S. Tatu

If a psalm has a title, it will be aligned at the centre of the column (cf. Ps. 42:1; 44:1; 46:1). As an exception, the superscriptions of Ps. 45 appears at the beginning of the row. In the case of Psalms 42 and 43, the editor preferred a chessboard arrangement. With the exception of its ﬁrst ﬁve verses, which are laid out as continuous rows, Ps. 44:6-14 (rows 34-48 on the ﬁrst column), it displays a ‘columnar arrangement’. When the text is resumed on the next column, after losing 44:1516, although extremely fragmentary, the pattern is not obvious anymore. The alignment of all rows to the right might suggest a return to a chessboard arrangement. Major deviations are noticed at 44:2 (line 14), 44:4 (line 16), 44:6 (line 17), 44:9 (line 22), 44:10 (line 23), and 44:15 (line 29). Another parchment (Ms T.-S. 20/52) in three fragments, the second of which is the best preserved, 15 cm high and 7.5 cm wide, originally displayed on two columns, contains Ps. 52:5–59:6 and 60:2–62:4.103 Generally, the editor seems to have preferred the chessboard arrangement, attempting to allow each ‘half-brick’ to accommodate a verse-line. Again, superscriptions are placed at the centre of the column (55:1; 57:1; 58:1; 59:1; 61:1; 62:1). Another parchment (Ms T.-S. 20/53) in two fragments, 12 cm high and 10 cm wide, originally displayed on three columns, contains Ps. 26:12–27:7, 28:7–31:3 and 31:12–33:1.104 Superscriptions appear at the centre of the column (except dwdl in Ps. 27:1). One can notice a similar tendency to pay tribute to aesthetics. Whenever ‘half-bricks’ are preferred, they tend to contain a verse-line. Probably a good example to illustrate our case is Psalm 29 (column 2, rows 6-18). With the exception of 29:3 (line 9), all verses are divided into verse-lines. The fact that the division into verse-lines follows closely the Masoretic suggestion (atnah.) is striking. In fact, only in 29:6 (line 12) is the verse not split by the atnah.. Intriguingly, Ps. 31:12-25 on column 3 does not display either an aesthetic structure or any concern for division into poetic lines. It seems that the division in verse 6 (lines 12-13) is rather circumstantial. The editor resumes his aesthetic arrangement with Ps. 32:1-11. Another parchment (Ms T.-S. 20/54), 12 cm high and 15 cm 103 104

Allony & D´ıez Macho 1958a, 94-100. Allony & D´ıez Macho 1958b, 258-61.

Graphic Devices

121

wide, originally displayed on three columns, contains Ps. 35:16–36:5; 37:20–38:8; 39:3–40:13.105 When ‘half-bricks’ are used, the editor gives credit to atnah. to divide the verse into verse-lines (except Ps. 37:35 on col. 2 row 16, Ps. 39:3 on col. 3 row 1, or Ps. 39:5 on row 6). Occasionally, azla legarmeh is credited with a similar authority (e.g. Ps. 36:5 - row 20).106 Parchment (Ms 508 A), held in the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, originally from the thirteenth century, betrays a Yemenite script, but belongs to the Babylonian Masoretic tradition. Apparently, two of the thirty-three folios, namely 28 and 29, are part of a diﬀerent document (Ms 508 B).107 It contains fragments from the t ma books.108 A ‘columnar layout’ is preferred following closely the major disjunctive Masoretic accents and displaying the superscriptions at the middle of the page. There are numerous examples of defective division, though.109 Occasionally, some versets are displayed on one row.110 One fragment from Job (42:10-17) does not display a poetic layout at all, although the rest of it regularly displays verse-lines.111 Very few of the Mss that ﬁt the description of the Palestinian tradition and are of value for the present study can be included. Ms 558 (in the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York) is a rather mixed collection of biblical fragments consisting of 26 folios. Folios 21-22, 105

Allony & D´ıez Macho 1958b, 267-71. Exceptions are provided by Ps. 39:6 divided into ﬁve units, 39:7 into four, 39:12 into four, 39:13 into six, 40:6 into ﬁve. 107 D´ıez Macho & Navarro Peiro 1987, xvii-xviii. 108 It contains Ps. 33:15–35:7; 63:10–78:32; 104:23–136:21; Job 8:3–9:20; 22:4– 23:15; 36:32–38:16; 42:10—42:17; Prov. 1:1-25; 9:4–10:32. 109 E.g. Ps. 65:8, 9, 11; 66:15, 16, 20; 67:5; 68:7, 8, 9, 15, 20, 22, 27, 31; 69:4; 70:6; 71:3, 4, 5, 19; 72:17; 73:1, 20; 75:9; 78:4, 9, 27; 105:9; 106:5; 107:41; 108:8, 10, 21; 118:12, 14; 119:53, 103, 149; 122:4; 123:4; 125:1, 2, 3; 127:1, 5; 128:4; 130:6; 131:2; 135:6; Prov. 24:14; 25:11. 110 E.g. Ps. 35:4; 63:12; 64:6; 65:5, 6, 12; 66:2, 3, 7, 8, 12; 68:3, 28; 69:3, 5, 16, 21, 36; 70:3, 5; 72:10, 15; 73:26, 27, 28; 74:2; 76:6; 77:3, 7; 78:8, 20, 21; 104:35; 106:8, 23, 39; 110:3, 4; 116:16; 124:7; 125:4, 5; 126:4, 6; 131:3; 132:11, 12; 134:1, 7, 9; Prov. 1:21; 24:14, 29; 25:7, 8. 111 D´ıez Macho documented the existence of other similar Hagiographic Mss of Yemenite origin, held by the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York (1957b, 241-2): Ms 456 (EMC 29, containing the ﬁrst 23 Psalms), Ms 430 B (containing Ps. 75:10–78:13; 90:11–92:4; 102:22–107:20; Prov. 26:17-30:2; 30:23-31; Qoh. 8:14–10:4); Ms 508 ﬀ 28-29 (containing Job 23:7-13; 36:23-34). 106

122

S. Tatu

evaluated by D´ıez Macho as proto-masoretic in the ben-Naftali tradition, contains Job 6:14–10:16 displayed in a ‘columnar layout’.112

6.2

Hebrew Mediaeval Manuscripts

Parchment, complete Ms of HB (dated 856 ce).113 There are 464 leaves, of 32-34 rows each, bearing the signs of six diﬀerent scribal hands. Though unpointed, the text displays a ﬁne Sephardic script (sometimes Ashkenazi). Each book ends with at least two blank rows or seven at the most. Seven rows appear at the end of Malachi, so that the following book (Psalms) may start with a new column. Verses are marked throughout the Bible, the Christian division of the Bible being followed, psalms are marked with numbers (149 and 150 are taken as one, though), the centre of the book is marked by the Masoretic term rpsh yxj (‘the middle of the book’). The greater part of the t ma is displayed in verse-lines. v Sea (folio 40a ) and v Deborah (folios 135b -136a ) display the chessboard arrangement. Codex Aleppo (early 10th century), was so named after the Syrian town where it was held by the local Jewish community, until the Israeli-Arab War in 1948, when the synagogue was set on ﬁre during an anti-Jewish riot. One quarter was lost but the rest of it was smuggled to Europe by Rabbi Moshe Tawil, and returned to Israel by Mordecai Fahham, where it was deposited in the Ben-Zvi Institute of the Hebrew University. At present, it comprises 294 folios, all that is left of the original Ms (presumably counting 380 folios), and is known as the Aleppo-Jerusalem Codex.114 112

D´ıez Macho 1956, 214-22, with respective plates. Also marked as SS 12. Cf. Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 12-15. For a more recent treatment of the Mss collection, cf. Reif 1997. 114 Cf. Goshen-Gottstein 1966, plates i-iii. The old Ms is regrettably fragmented, some books being completely destroyed: missing are Gen. 1:1 - Deut. 28:17 (except ˚traçmw), Obadiah, Jonah, Qohelet, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, 1 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah. Other books are only partially preserved: passages 29:9-31:35 and 32:2-4, 9-11, 21-24 are missing from Jeremiah, there are fragments missing from the Minor Prophets such as Amos 8:12, Micah 1:1, last verse of Zephaniah, Haggai 1:1 to Zechariah 9:17, Psalms 15:1–25:1 are also missing, Canticles is missing from 3:11 (except ˆwYoxi twnoB] hn:ya,r“W hn:ya,x]) until the end of the book, 2 Chronicles lacks 35:7–36:19. The page with the text of Deut. 4:38–6:3 can be seen on photographs taken by Segall (1910); see Ben-Zvi 1960, 2-3. The reference to the missing passage in 2 Chronicles is wrong (36:7–26:19) and has to be amended to 36:7–36:19. 113

Graphic Devices

123

Considered by some Israeli scholars the ‘crown’ of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, the best of the Masoretes,115 apparently, the Aleppo Codex was even available to Moses Maimonides, while the Ms was located in Cairo (before the 14th century ce).116 The Hebrew University is currently preparing a new critical edition of the HB on the basis of this Ms. Its fame is due not only to the fact that Aaron ben Moshe ben Asher himself wrote it but also because he provided it with the pointing and Masorah (traditional commentaries) with so much care that it became the standard, to be consulted by scholars, and not for reading or study (W¨ urthwein 1985, 25). The AleppoJerusalem Codex was published in photographic plates in 1976.117 The usual layout is three columns on each folio, with the exception of the books of Psalms,118 Job, and Proverbs, which are arranged in two wider columns. It clearly marks v Mosesa , displaying it in a ‘columnar pattern’. The text of the song is preceded by ﬁve and a half long prose rows and a blank row, and followed by a blank row and four and a half long rows of text, although the usual texture is arranged in three columns. The texture is justiﬁed towards the extremities, so that between the two columns of verse-lines there is a gap. There is no special poetic layout for v Mosesb , leaving the texture in the regular three columns display of the nearby prose texture. An arrangement 115

Cf. Eisenberg 1976, 80-4. Although its authority was contested until the text was made available for study, it is generally accepted that Codex Aleppo represents a genuine text of the Tiberian school of Masoretic tradition. For a detailed discussion of arguments concerning its credibility, see Goshen-Gottstein 1960, and Loewinger 1960. 116 Ben-Zvi 1960, 7, even recorded Maimonides’ opinion on this matter, identifying the authoritative ben Asher text quoted in Hilkhoth Sefer Torah, viii, with Codex Aleppo. Cf. also Kahle 1959, 105-9. 117 Published in facsimile by the Hebrew University Bible Project in agreement with the Trustees of the Codex Aleppo, at the Magnes Press in Jerusalem, in only 500 copies, under the editorship of M.H. Goshen-Gottstein. Alongside Codex Aleppo, a few more documents are accepted as part of the Tiberian Masoretic school: the Cairo Ms of the Prophets (= C, dated 895 ce), Codex Leningradensis (= L, dated 1008 ce), the British Museum Ms of the Pentateuch (= B, around middle 9th century ce), Codex Sassoon 507 of the Torah (= S, dated 10th century) and Codex Sassoon 1053 of the Bible (= S1 , dated 10th century) (Kahle 1959, 91-7; Loewinger 1960, 59; Tov 2001a, 47). 118 Including the ﬁnal part of 2 Chron. 36, as it was written on the page where the Psalms start.

124

S. Tatu

in two columns, preceded by ﬁve long prose rows and a blank, has been applied to v David (plates 137-8). As for the list of defeated Canaanite kings (Josh. 12:9-24), the regular texture is altered again. Instead of the three usual columns there is only one column of the usual size and a wider one, wherein the expected list appear in four narrower columns (plate 26). v Deborah is set out on three plates (48-50). The chessboard arrangement is obvious throughout the poem.119 The ﬁrst verses are written on a narrower column, comparable to the list in Joshua, because they appear on the same folio as the previous prose text. The prose text that follows is displayed in long rows, though, preserving the marking out of the poetry. Masoretic notes are written at the bottom of the page. Some genealogical lists in 2 Chronicles tend to be structured diﬀerently, i.e. although the three column structure is preserved, columns are indented towards the margins (plates 436-7). The layout of the t ma books, except the narrative sections of Job, diﬀers from the usual layout of Codex Aleppo with three columns per page. These poetic books display a two-column per page arrangement.120 The Psalms are separated from each other by row blanks,121 the superscription is always marked by a blank, and the catena of consonants is split regularly into verse-lines. The use of gaps permitted arranging the catenae according to a ‘columnar pattern’, even when its division does not ﬁt the Masoretic one.122 Unless marked by soph pasuq the end of the verset is assumed to be at the end of the row. Therefore, the prosodic structure becomes clearer.123 Selah is not marked in any particular manner. When particular rows were to be continued to the following row, a line-ﬁller similar to yod was placed at the end of the incom119

A similar pattern is used by the Cairo Codex to the Prophets (Perez Castro 1979, 143-150. 120 In the Ms they come at the end, where they are followed only by Ruth and the ﬁrst part of Canticles. On these ﬁnal pages, we ﬁnd again the three-column per page arrangement of the preceding books. 121 Psalms 114 and 115 run continuously without any blank row divisor. 122 Sanders identiﬁes several categories for this phenomenon as displayed in Codex Aleppo in relation to the ﬁrst 14 Psalms (Sanders 2002, 231-3). 123 Marking the end of the verset falling in the middle of the line occurs in the following instances: Ps. 2:2, 5; 4:2, 4; 10:16; 12:8, etc. In other situations, the end is not marked even though it falls in the middle of the line.

Graphic Devices

125

plete row.124 Strangely, the same grapheme appears for a diﬀerent reason when placed at the end of the verset (e.g. Ps. 104:9). Even though they are not applied consistently throughout the whole document, two rules for the division of poems into poetic lines emerge. First, the major divisor seems to be atnah., since it is assigned with disjunctive power. Second, the consonant catena is broken alongside legarmeh. There are two reasons for allowing such a minor divisor to have a disjunctive eﬀect of this magnitude: when preceding the tetragrammaton (e.g. Ps. 108:4), and when necessary to produce a ‘chessboard’ pattern. Apparently, the aesthetic patterns had a greater impression on the editor than the ‘columnar arrangement’ of the poems, because there are many instances where the editor preferred a nice arrangement of catena sections to its rigorous division into verse-lines (e.g. Ps. 112:1-7, 16-18). Even so, poetic lines can be reconstructed, if one notices that the second row is occasionally split into verse-lines across the adjacent rows so that the structural pattern is followed. As opposed to the aforementioned Mss, the aesthetic pattern preferred by the editors of the codex was blended with a continuous row with a variable frequency, depending on the structure of each poem, as if it functioned as a mnemonic device (e.g. the 13 rows of Psalm 101 follow the ‘log over log/brick over brick’ pattern with the exception of rows 3 and 11, which are continuous catenae). Nevertheless, Psalm 103 displays a chain of four continuous catenae, following the ﬁrst four regular rows of fragmented catenae, a pattern that is not reiterated within the poem. There might be other reasons for preferring such a column-wide catena. In the case of acrostic psalms, particularly 119, one suspects that such a row was enforced by the regulation to start each new row with the beginning of the verse where the acrostic consonant should have appeared. Thus, crowded rows are very frequent both in Psalm 119 (e.g. 119:39, 43, 87, 104, 106, 128, etc.) and elsewhere (e.g. Ps. 145:12, 13, 15, 21). It was certainly diﬃcult to produce a columnar pattern, especially in the case of a long verse that produced lengthy verse-lines, due to the limited width of the columns.125 124

E.g. 10:18; 14:2; 29:5; 35:21; 36:9; 102:4; 104:4, 5; 107:9; 111:9; 135:15; 144:13; 147:6. 125 Sanders 2002, 248, reaches a similar conclusion after surveying Pss. 1–14.

126

S. Tatu

Codex Leningradensis is a ﬁrst-hand copy from a ben-Asher original text.126 Named after the Leningrad Public Library, which held it, the Ms B19A (or simply L) indicates a similar layout of the poetic passages. v Sea exhibits a more regular chessboard pattern than in the previous Ms. Masoretic notes embed its texture. Modern versions of the original text, such as BHS, follow this text. A more recent edition of this codex was recently published by Dotan.127 Notice the very peculiar arrangement of Qoh. 3:1-9 and Ezra 2:43-57 in Leningradensis as reproduced by Dotan where the columns have the width of one word only. Instead, the lists in Josh. 12:9-24 cover four columns, Ezra 2:3-42, 8:1-13, 10:20-44, and similar passages in Nehemiah and Chronicles, display two marginal columns of irregular length, with the tendency for the right-hand side column to comprise one word only, whereas the list in Neh. 7:53-59 displays three columns. Spaces or gaps are used to separate the superscription from the main body of the psalm, or to mark the beginning of a new poem. Within the Psalter, three blank rows are used to mark the transition from one book to another (between Pss. 41 and 42, 72 and 73, 89 and 90, 106 and 107).

6.3

Other Mediaeval Hebrew Manuscripts

A fragmentary Ms of a Pentateuch scroll (10th-11th cent.)128 preserves 117 columns, comprising 51 rows in oriental Sephardic script, most probably two scribes being involved. v Sea is marked by contrast with the preceding passage, which is laid out in shorter rows. Although verses are not numbered, they are still marked by a dot (sometimes two dots) after the last word of a sentence; a dot under a word marks a half-verse. Liturgical reading paragraphs (twvrp) are marked by a mega-segol at the beginning of the row. A vellum of an oriental eleventh-twelfth century Pentateuch considers carefully v Sea and v Mosesa , which have broad, illuminated borders, the gaps between verse-lines of the latter containing ornamentation.129 126 Published in facsimile by D.N. Freedman, A.B. Beck & J.A. Sanders (Grand Rapids 1998). 127 Dotan 2001. 128 SS 1; cf. Schiller-Szinessy 1976, 1-4. 129 Margoliouth 1899, 40.

Graphic Devices

127

The earliest English Ms of the HB, actually the only extant dated mediaeval Hebrew Ms written in England (copied in 1189), shares common features with the rest of the documents held there. These include the following: verses are marked by qwsp πws (‘end of verse’), the beginning of individual psalms is marked aesthetically, v Sea appears to be consistently written in a diﬀerent manner from the texts on the sides, i.e. chessboard pattern without any prosodic connection, but aesthetic.130 A parchment, a complete Ms of the HB (12th-13th cent.),131 has 246 leaves, 4 sheet-quires of three columns each in Sefardi script. v Sea (leaf 58) and the poetic books (leaves 188b -223a ) display a ‘columnar arrangement’. Parchment, a defective Ms of the Prophets and the Hagiographa (12th-13th cent.),132 has 193 leaves, mostly 4-sheet quires. The texture is written in two columns of 28-31 rows each in French Ashkenazi script. v Deborah (21b -22a ) and v David (74a -75a ) display a chessboard arrangement. One of its owners supplemented the original with running titles on the upper margin, superscriptions at the commencement of the books, pagination and numbering of the chapters according to the Christian tradition. Parchment, partially damaged Ms of the HB (13th-14th cent.),133 has 288 leaves, 6-sheet quires, with two columns of 32 rows each. There are a few exceptions, though: v Sea (47b -48a ) is written over the whole page without any metrical form, v Mosesa (147a -148a ) is in verse-lines, whereas part of v Deborah (172b ), and v David (229b 230a ) display the chessboard arrangement. Blank rows mark the end of the books, and paragraph markers are provided too, but only in the margins. Parchment, incomplete Ms of the HB (13th-14th cent.),134 has 336 leaves on 4-sheet quires. Texture written on two columns of 26 rows each in Sephardi script. v Sea (47a -48b ) displays a chessboard arrangement, v Mosesb (143b -145a ), v David (158b -159a ), and t ma 130

See plates 1-3 in Richler 1998, 2, 6, 7, where fragments of the following Mss are presented: Ms Valmadonna 1 (1189, England), Ms Valmadonna 2 (11th-12th cent., Spain), and Ms Valmadonna 3 (13th-14th cent.). 131 SS 13; cf. Schiller-Szinessy 1976, 16-19. 132 SS 20; cf. Schiller-Szinessy 1976, 30-2. 133 SS 14; cf. Schiller-Szinessy 1976, 19-21. 134 SS 16; cf. Schiller-Szinessy 1976, 24-5.

128

S. Tatu

(195b -282a ) follow a ‘columnar pattern’. Blank rows mark the end of the books; also liturgical paragraphs and number of the Psalms are marked. Vellum of the Bible (dated Toledo, 1246) displays v Sea and v Mosesa (34b , 97b ) in painted borders (Or. 2201).135 Vellum of the Bible (dated Solsona, 1385) displays the rows of t ma in a ‘columnar arrangement’.136 Vellum of the Bible (14th cent. - Or. 4227) exhibits an interesting way of laying out Psalm 119, by dividing it into its component parts as separate individual psalms. As a result, this document has 170 psalms instead of 150.137 Psalms are individually marked by the original scribe, using Hebrew letters as numerals in another fourteenth century vellum (Add. 15,252).138 Vellum Add.15251 (dated 1448) is extremely abundant in decorations. The ﬁrst word of each book is written in gold or coloured letters, framed by gold borders with ﬂower-like designs in gold or colour. v Sea, particularly, is distinguished by a wide gold border, with paintings of coloured animals and ﬂowers. Lamentations has no ornamentation, though. A later hand numbered the chapters with Hebrew letters. Some books (Canticles, Ruth) and parts of Psalms are embedded in Masoretic notes.139 A fourteenth century parchment, incomplete Ms of the HB,140 has only 206 leaves on 4-sheet quires. The texture is written on two columns of 28 rows each in Sephardi script. v Sea (46), v Mosesa (139b -140a ), v Deborah (152), and v David (159) display a chessboard arrangement. Unsystematic marking of the end of the books by blank rows, liturgical paragraphs are marked by a colourful peret. in the margin. Fragmentary fourteenth century scroll of the Pentateuch (Harl. 7619) displays v Sea in a diﬀerent manner from the text on the sides, even dividing it into strophes of aesthetic value, and dividing the rows into verse-lines. It is preceded by six rows with the prescribed initial words and one blank row; it is followed by one blank row, eight rows of text, and a blank row.141 135

Margoliouth 1899, 21. Margoliouth 1899, 26-7. 137 Margoliouth 1899, 29-30. 138 Margoliouth 1899, 31. 139 Margoliouth 1899, 32-3. 140 SS 18; cf. Schiller-Szinessy 1976, 27-9. 141 Margoliouth 1899, 1-2. 136

Graphic Devices

129

Oriental lacunal fourteenth century Ms of the Hagiographa displays the Psalms numbered and divided into ﬁve books by a later hand. Non-traditional sequence of μyrds (‘paragraphs’) for the reading of the Psalms. Directions for the use of speciﬁc psalms are also provided in the margins by a later hand.142 The division of the Psalms into the ﬁve books is also seen in Add. 27053, (Italian 15th cent. Ms of the Hagiographa),143 and Or. 2374 (Oriental 15th cent. Ms of the Hagiographa).144 Vellum, partially damaged Ms of the HB (14th-15th century)145 has 499 leaves, mostly 5-sheet quires. Texture is written in three columns (mostly) of 28 rows each. v Sea (42b -43a ), v Deborah (147) and v David (197b -198a ) display a chessboard arrangement. v Mosesb (124a -125b ) displays a ‘columnar arrangement’. According to its colophon, the Ms now known as the Kennicott Bible represents a ﬁfteenth century Ms of the HB, produced in Corunna in the Spanish province of Galicia by Moses Ibn Zabarah, completed on 24th July 1476. The document was purchased by the Radcliﬀe Trustees in Oxford in 1771 at the suggestion of Benjamin Kennicott (1712-1783). The Ms is the work of three persons: a scribe, an artist and the patron. Due to its artistry, the Kennicott Bible ‘is considered as one of the most sumptuous Hebrew illuminated Mss in existence, and a masterpiece of mediaeval Sephardi art.’146 The texture’s layout consists of two columns per page, according to the rule of the day, except for the poetic passages, which extend over the entire width of the page. v Sea (folio 44), v Deborah (folio 141 verso, 142 recto), and v David (folio 183) are set out in the chessboard pattern, whereas v Mosesa (folio 117rev.-118rev.) exhibits a ‘columnar arrangement’ with both columns justiﬁed on the right margin. v Mosesb (folio 119 obv.) displays ‘columnar arrangement’ too, but it has a supplementary anthropomorphic decoration in the upper section of the middle of the page. Entries of the various tribes are marked either by starting a new row or by allowing a generous blank in front of it. The t ma books (353b -404b ) display a chessboard pattern, oc142

Margoliouth 1899, 110-1. Margoliouth 1899, 113. 144 Margoliouth 1899, 113. 145 SS 15; cf. Schiller-Szinessy 1976, 21-3. 146 Narkiss & Cohen-Mushlin 1985, 10. 143

130

S. Tatu

casionally obscured by rows with variable length and preferring the headings as titles, centered in the middle of the page. The Psalter is divided into poems and marked artistically in the margin with a small gold and/or painted panel surrounded by elongated pen scrolls. Short passages from Chronicles display a chessboard pattern, but they retain the allocated width of the column (folio 327). It starts with full-page illuminated arcades on 15 pages. Each biblical book starts with an illuminated page. The columns or even pages left blank, in order to enable each book to start a new column, are ﬁlled with ornamental panels and carpet pages respectively. The books of the Torah are divided into paragraphs, marked also by fantastic or natural motifs, in gold and/or coloured. Oriental Ms of the Hagiographa, dated 1459 (Or. 2348), treats Psalm 119 in a special way: it is written on two illuminated pages in the form of ornamental designs.147 A similar ornamental design is imposed on Psalm 119 in another oriental 15th century Ms (Or. 1379). Towards the end of the Ms Or. 2349, a Yemenite vellum dated 1490, a non-canonical poem is inserted. The introductory formula resembles a well-known biblical phrase, vdj ryv hwhyl wryv (‘sing to the Lord a new song’, cf. Ps. 96:1; 98:1; 149:1; Isa. 42:10), but then goes on in an original manner. The interesting thing is that it conﬁrms the knowledge of verses and verse-lines its author must have had.148 Ms Heb e. 60,149 written in Persian Rabbinic characters on one column of 17-19 rows, dated 1485, contains the Pentateuch and fragments of the Hagiographa. A similar copy can be found in the British Museum.150 v Sea (folios 77b -78a ) is illuminated, having little ﬂower motifs on each of the spaces left on the rows, resembling a chessboard pattern. v Mosesa (folios 233b -235b ) displays a ‘columnar arrangement’, and is clearly marked oﬀ as a poem by blank rows separating it from the previous and following texts. Psalms are partially written in a ‘columnar pattern’ (see folios 349, 381, 394a , 395a -400a , 403a -405a , 408b -411a ). Proverbs are mostly written in a ‘columnar pattern’ (see folios 418b , 420a -427a , 430b -436a , 440a , 443b -444b ). Fragmentary seventeenth century scroll of the Pentateuch (Or. 147

Margoliouth 1899, 64. Margoliouth 1899, 66. 149 Neubauer & Cowley 1906, 227-8. 150 Margoliouth 1899, MS 92. 148

Graphic Devices

131

1085), where v Sea is preceded by six long rows of text and a blank. A blank row and ten rows of text follow it.151 Similar constructions, with or without blank rows, mark oﬀ v Sea and v Mosesa in Or. 1451, 1452 (Yemenite 15th cent. Mss), Or. 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1462 (all oriental, 15th cent. Mss), Or. 1459, 1460, 1461, 1464 (oriental 16th cent. Mss). Undated Heb Mss152 exhibits the texture of the narrative passages in long rows, two or even one column/folio, marking just the end of the verse. Although the letters follow one after the other in tidy chains, words are still evident because of the blanks used in between them. As opposed to narrative texts, poetry is laid out in a ‘columnar pattern’, with the columns aligned toward their extremities. v David (only 2 Sam. 22:33-51), written in Syrian square characters, has its last verse concluding the poetic structure by a continuous catena of words (folio 13). Psalms 36, 37 (folio 21), 48, 50 (fragmentary - on folio 22), written in Spanish square characters, appear in a ‘columnar arrangement’ without the alignment of the previous document. Psalms 95– 102 (folio 23), written in very tiny and ﬁne square characters, exhibit a speciﬁc structure, applied throughout the Psalms which cannot be seen on the narrative text written by a similar or identical hand (see folio 20 on Hag. 1:10–Zech. 2:4). Thus, one can notice two complete rows followed by a row obstructed in the middle by quite a large space, not in order to match the verse-line structure of the Psalm, but purely for aesthetics. Each psalm starts with a title, corresponding or not to the colophon. Psalms 104:24–106:4 (folios 24-5), written in Spanish square characters does not reﬂect this tendency. The rows are ﬁlled up to the end of the row, with small spaces at the end of the verse. A new psalm is marked by a larger space. Proverbs (fragmentary on folio 26), written in Syrian square characters, appear also arranged in verse-lines and strophes. Although the printing press must have started to produce Hebrew texts by the late ﬁfteenth century, the writing of books did not stop, but just declined.153 Other Mss could have been added but this selection should prove suﬃcient.154 151

Margoliouth 1899, 5. Neubauer & Cowley 1906, 15-17. 153 Sirat 2002, 12. 154 D´ıez Macho (1957a, 86-7) mentions two more late Mss of the Psalms held

152

132

S. Tatu

7 Preliminary Conclusions In comparison with the Qumran Mss, mediaeval incunabula exhibit more sensitivity for poetic texts, marking them with a variety of structures. The simplest device used for making them more evident was to place blank rows before and after them. Any change from the normal layout of the narrative text makes them even more evident. Narrower columns, justiﬁed ‘columnar arrangements’, and chessboard arrangements are the most used structures, sometimes even illuminated or embellished by ﬂoral, animal or geometric, naive or fantastic motifs, in gold or in colour. Towards the ﬁfteenth century, the amount of Mss displaying such technical characteristics increases. A tradition of writing canonical poetry is taking shape, and it can be traced not only in Europe (Spain, Italy and Russia) but also in the Orient (Babylon, Yemen and Palestine). It is safe to suggest an increasing interest for aesthetics in respect of several poems contained in non-poetic books: v Sea, v Mosesb , v Deborah, and v David. As proof of their special status, the chessboard pattern is mostly preferred in their case. Other textual units, such as v Mosesa , the list of defeated Canaanite kings, and the list of Haman’s sons, display a ‘columnar arrangement’. As for the t ma books, it seems that the ‘columnar arrangement’, wherein each ‘brick’ is coextensive with a verse-line, is preferred instead. To say that these structures marked biblical lyricism is an inescapable conclusion. Interestingly enough, all of the above poems and books ended up being catalogued as poetry in modern studies, ﬁtting all prosodic standards. Nonetheless, there are aspects that oppose a straightforward conclusion and prompt a longer deliberation. What are the reasons for leaving aside other poems, such as v Jakob, Balaam’s oracles (Num. 23:7-24:19), v Mosesb , v Hannah, or even v Habbakuk (Hab. 3)? Moreover, the writing of these texts had to follow other strict rules. Whilst v Mosesa borders on sections of ﬁve regular rows and a blank, v Mosesa borders on sections of six regular rows and a blank.155 by the National University Library in Strasbourg: Ms 4083 f. 11 (Ps. 22:20–23:5) and Ms 4083 ﬀ 13-14 (Ps. 105:27–106:24, 119:35-75). 155 Even today, a copy of the Torah cannot be published if it displays v Sea and v Mosesa in regular lines and with similar structural arrangement (Sof. 1:11).

Graphic Devices

133

8 General Conclusions Our data suggest that marking poems by special structural patterns is not a recent technique in writing biblical Mss. Due to a very conservative approach to the Biblical transmission tradition, though, such practices were reluctantly accepted into the Pentateuch and Prophetic corpus. They found a more fertile ground in the t ma books instead. Initially, as some of the Qumran, early Greek (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus), and Latin (Vulgate) Mss indicate, the use of unwritten areas (blanks, spaces and gaps) was successfully applied to delimit adjacent verse-lines. Such awareness of poetic rhythm that must have inspired verse division by means of blanks is continued by other textual traditions with roots in the third century ce (Codex Alexandrinus, Peshit.ta, The Samaritan Pentateuch), which preferred to use various symbols for similar reasons. The masterminds of verse delimitation are the Masoretes, even though pre-Masoretic Mss display an educated awareness of poetic structure. A large number of Mss from the tenth century onwards (e.g. Codex Aleppo, Codex Leningradensis), possibly reﬂecting much earlier established textual traditions, converge in their interest to maintain a standard of marking verse-lines in poems within or outside the t ma books. By then the complicated, rather aesthetic, arrangements (‘columnar’, chessboard and their variants) promoted by Rabbinic tradition found their place within the larger textual tradition of biblical literature, competing against more literary approaches to verse division. Whether the division of verses into cola in one tradition follows another cannot be said for certain without a comparative consideration of various literary traditions, but this did not constitute the focus of this paper. One should consider carefully the division of each poem into its respective verse-lines according to each textual tradition and only then compare the results for more exact conclusions on this matter.156

156 Cf. the analysis of Pss. 1–14 in Codex Aleppo, 5/6HevPss and BHS by Sanders 2002).

Bibliography Allony & D´ıez Macho 1958a – N. Allony, A. D´ıez Macho, ‘Dos Manuscritos “palestinenses” m´as de la Geniza del Cairo’, EstB 17 (1958), 84-100. Allony & D´ıez Macho 1958b – N. Allony, A. D´ıez Macho, ‘Otros dos Manuscritos “palestinenses” de Salmos’, Sef. 18 (1958), 254-71. Allony & D´ıez Macho 1959 – N. Allony, A. D´ıez Macho, ‘Lista de variantes en la edici´on de los Mss “palestinenses” T.-S. 20/58 y 20/52’, EstB 18 (1959), 293-8. Baber 1812 – H.H. Baber (ed.), Psalterium Graecum e Codice Ms Alexandrino qui Londini in Bibliotheca Musei Britannici Asservatur, London 1812. Baillet et al. 1962 – M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, R. de Vaux, Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran (DJD 3, 3a), Oxford 1962. Barth´elemy, & Milik 1955 – D. Barth´elemy, J.T. Milik et al., Qumran Cave 1 (DJD, 1), Oxford 1955. Ben-Zvi 1960 – I. Ben-Zvi, ‘The Codex of Ben Asher’, Textus 1 (1960), 1-16. Berlin 1991 – A. Berlin, Biblical Poetry Through Medieval Jewish Eyes, Bloomington, IN 1991. Brogan 1993 – T.V.F. Brogan, ‘Verse and Prose’, in: A. Preminger, T.V.F. Brogan (eds), The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, Princeton, NJ 1993, 1346-51. Brown 2003 – D. Brown, ‘Jerome and the Vulgate’, in: A.J. Hauser, D.F. Watson (eds), A History of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1: The Ancient Period, Grand Rapids, MI 2003, 355-79. Cohen 1965 – A. Cohen, The Minor Tractates of the Talmud (Massektoth Ketannoth), 2 vols, London 1965. De Boer 1977 – P.A.H. de Boer, The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshit.ta Version, vol. 1.1 (Genesis and Exodus), Leiden 1977.

Graphic Devices – Bibliography

135

De Bruin 2006 – W.M. de Bruin, ‘Traces of Hebrew Text Division in Jerome’s Commentaries’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2005, 21-39. D´ıez Macho 1956 – A. D´ıez Macho, ‘Un manuscrito hebreo protomasor´etico y nueva teor´ıa acerca de los llamades Mss Ben Nefatal´ı, EstB 15 (1956), 187-222. D´ıez Macho 1957a – A. D´ıez Macho, Valiosos manuscritos b´ıblicos en la Biblioteca Nacional y Universitaria de Estrasburgo’, EstB 16 (1957), 83-8. D´ıez Macho 1957b – A. D´ıez Macho, ‘Nuevos manuscritos b´ıblicos babil´onicos’, EstB 16 (1957), 235-77. D´ıez Macho 1971 – A. D´ıez Macho, Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia: Contribuci´ on al estudio de las diversas tradiciones del texto del Antiguo Testamento (Studia Ephemeridis ”Augustinianum”, 5), Roma 1971. D´ıez Macho, & Navarro Peiro 1987 – A. D´ıez Macho, A. Navarro Peiro, Biblia Babilonica: Fragmentos de Salmos, Job y Proverbios (Ms 508 A del Seminario Teol´ ogico Jud´ıo de Nueva York (TECC, 42), Madrid 1987. D´ıez Macho 1988 – A. D´ıez Macho, Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia, series IV, vols. 1-5, Madrid 1988. Dotan 2001 – A. Dotan, Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia: Prepared According to the Vocalisation, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex, Peabody Mass. 2001. Eisenberg 1976 – A. Eisenberg, The Book of Books: The Story of the Bible Text, London 1976. Fern´andez Marcos 2000 – N. Fern´andez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, Leiden 2000. Flint 1997 – P.W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 17), Leiden 1997. Flint 2000a – P.W. Flint, ‘The Preliminary Edition of 5/6HevPsalms’, JJS 51 (2000), 19-41.

136

S. Tatu

Flint 2000b – P.W. Flint, ‘5/6HevPsalms’, in: J. Charlesworth et al. (eds), Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert (DJD, 38), Oxford 2000, 141-66. Garc´ıa Mart´ınez et al. 1998 – F.G. Garc´ıa Mart´ınez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar, A.S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11, vol II: 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31 (DJD, 23), Oxford 1998. Goshen-Gottstein 1960 – M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex’, Textus 1 (1960), 17-58. Goshen-Gottstein 1966 – M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘A Recovered Part of the Aleppo Codex’, Textus 5 (1966), 53-9. Jellicoe 1968 – S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford 1968. Jenner 1999 – K.D. Jenner, ‘The Unit Delimitation in the Syriac Text of Daniel and its Consequences for the Interpretation’, in: Korpel & De Moor 2000, 105-129. ¨ Kahle 1913 – P.E. Kahle, Masoreten des Ostens: die Altesten punktierten Handschriften des Alten Testaments und der Targume (BWATH, 15), Leipzig 1913. Kahle 1928 – P.E. Kahle, ‘Die hebr¨aischen Bibelhandschriften aus Babylonien. Mit Faksimiles von 70 Handschriften’, ZAW 46 (1928), 113-37. Kahle 1959 – P.E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 2 1959. Kasser & Testuz 1967 – R. Kasser, M. Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer XXIV: Psaumes XVII-CXVIII, Cologny-Gen`eve 1967. Kenyon 1900 – F.G. Kenyon, Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum, London 1900. Kenyon 1915-1936 – F.G. Kenyon The Codex Alexandrinus (Royal Ms 1 D V-VIII) in Reduced Photographic Facsimile, 5 vols, London 1915-1936. Korpel & Oesch 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000. Korpel & Oesch 2002 – M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (Pericope, 3), Assen 2002.

Graphic Devices – Bibliography

137

Korpel & Oesch 2005 – M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets (Pericope, 5), Assen 2005. Kugel 1981 – J.L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History, New Haven CT, 1981. Lake & Lake 1922 – H. Lake, K. Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus et Friderico-Augustanus Lipsiensis, Oxford 1922. Levine 1977 – E. Levine, The Targum to the Five Megillot: Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Esther. Codex Vatican Urbinati I, Jerusalem 1977. Loewe 1969 – R. Loewe, ‘The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate’ in: G.W.H. Lampe (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, Cambridge 1969, 102-54. Loewinger 1960 – D.S. Loewinger, ‘The Aleppo Codex and the Ben Asher Tradition’, Textus 1 (1960), 59-111. Marcotte 1954 – H. Marcotte de Sainte-Marie, Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos (CBL, 11), Rome 1954. Margoliouth 1899 – G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, part 1, London 1899. Milik 1957 – J.T. Milik, ‘Deux documents in´edits du d´esert de Juda’, Bib. 38 (1957), 245-68. Miller 1934 – H. Miller, Britain’s New National and International Bible, London 1934. Murtonen 1958 – A. Murtonen, Materials for a Non-Masoretic Hebrew Grammar, vol. 1: Liturgical Texts and Psalm Fragments Provided with the So-Called Palestinian Punctuation, Helsinki 1958. Murtonen 1964 – A. Murtonen, Materials for a Non-Masoretic Hebrew Grammar, vol. 3: A Grammar of the Samaritan Dialect of Hebrew (Studia Orientalia, 19), Helsinki 1964. Narkiss & Cohen-Mushlin 1985 – B. Narkiss, A. Cohen-Mushlin, The Kennicott Bible, London 1985.

138

S. Tatu

Neubauer & Cowley 1906 – A. Neubauer, A.E. Cowley, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, vol 2, Oxford 1906. N¨oldeke 1904 – Th. N¨oldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, London 2 1904. Oesch 1983 – J.M. Oesch, ‘Textgliederung im Alten Testament und in den Qumranhandschriften’, Henoch 5 (1983), 289-321. Perez Castro 1979 – F. Perez Castro, El Codice de Profetas de El Cairo, tomo 1: Josue, Jueces (Textos y Studios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’), Madrid 1979. Rahlfs 1914 – A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, 1914. Reif 1997 – S.C. Reif, Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library: A Description and Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 52), Cambridge 1997. Revell 1971 – E. J. Revell, ‘The Oldest Evidence for the Hebrew Accent System’, BJRL 54 (1971), 214-22. Revell 1981 – E.J. Revell, ‘Pausal Forms and the Structure of Biblical Poetry’, VT 31 (1981), 186-99. Richler 1998 – B. Richler (ed.), The Hebrew Manuscripts in the Valmadonna Trust Library, London 1998. Roberts 1936 – C.H. Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Manchester 1936. Sanders 1962 – J.A. Sanders, ‘The Scroll of Psalms (11QPss) From Cave 11: A Preliminary Report’, BASOR 165 (1962), 11-15. Sanders 1963 – J.A. Sanders, ‘Psalm 151 in 11QPss’, ZAW 75 (1963), 73-86. Sanders 1964 – J.A. Sanders, ‘Two Non-Canonical Psalms in 11QPsa ’, ZAW 76 (1964), 57-75. Sanders 1965 – J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrˆ an Cave 11 (11QPsa ) (DJD, 4), Oxford 1965.

Graphic Devices – Bibliography

139

Sanders 1996 – P. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OTS, 37), Leiden 1996. Sanders 2000 – P. Sanders, ‘Ancient Colon Delimitations: 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 277-311. Sanders 2002 – P. Sanders, ‘The Colometric Layout of Psalms 1 to 14 in the Aleppo Codex’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2002, 226-257. Schiller-Szinessy 1976 – S.M. Schiller-Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts Preserved in the University Library, Cambridge, vol. 1, Cambridge 1976. Shaked 1964 – S. Shaked, A Tentative Bibliography of Geniza Documents (EtJ, 5), Paris 1964. Segall 1910 – J. Segall, Travels through Northern Syria, London 1910. Skehan 1992 – P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and J.E. Sanderson Qumran Cave 4, vol 4: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, (DJD, 9), Oxford 1992. Sirat 2002 – C. Sirat, Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages, Cambridge 2002. Sperber 1992 – A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, 4 vols, Leiden 1992. Tal 1994 – A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch Edited According to Ms 6 (C) of the Shekhem Synagogue (Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects, 8), Tel Aviv 1994. Tatu 2005 – S. Tatu, ‘The Study of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Terminological Issues’, Studia Theologica 3/2 (2005), 206-19. Tatu 2006 – S. Tatu, ‘The Study of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Methodological Issues’, Studia Theologica 4/2 (2006), 124-62. Tov 1996 – E. Tov, ‘Scribal Practices in the Documents from the Judaean Desert and in the Rabbinic Literature: A Comparative Study’, in: M.V. Fox et al. (eds), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, Winona Lake IN 1996, 383-403. Tov 2001a – E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis 2 2001.

140

S. Tatu

Tov 2001b – E. Tov, ‘Scribal Features of Early Witnesses of Greek Scriptures’, in: R.J.V. Hiebert, C.E. Cox, P.J. Gentry (eds), The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (JSOT.S, 332), Sheﬃeld 2001b, 125-48. Tov 2003 – E. Tov, ‘The Indication of Small Sense Units (Verses) in Biblical Manuscripts’, in: M.F.J. Baasten, W. T. van Peursen (eds), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Prof. T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (OLA, 118), Leuven 2003, 473-86. Tov 2004 – E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reﬂected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 54), Leiden 2004. Ulrich 1994 – E. Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4, vol. 7: Genesis to Numbers (DJD, 12), Oxford 1994. Ulrich et al. 1995 – E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4, vol. 9: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD, 14), Oxford 1995. Ulrich et al. 2000 – E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4, vol XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD, 16), Oxford 2000. Von Gall 1918 – A.F. von Gall, Der hebr¨ aische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, Giessen 1918 (Photomechanischer Nachdruck, Berlin 1966). ¨ Von Weerts 1906 – J. von Weerts, ‘Uber die babylonisch punktierte Handschrift No. 1546 der II. Firkowitschschen Sammlung (Codex Tschufutkale No. 3)’, ZAW 26 (1906), 49-84. Williams 2001 – T.F. Williams, ‘Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter’, in: R.J.V. Hiebert, C.E. Cox, P.J. Gentry (eds), The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (JSOT.S, 332), Sheﬃeld 2001, 248-76. Wilson 1985 – G.H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBL-DS, 76), Chico CA 1985. W¨ urthwein 1985 – E. W¨ urthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, Grand Rapids MI, 2 1985.

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton Joop H.A. van Banning S.J. Nijmegen – The Netherlands

1 Introduction Who divided our Bible into chapters and verses? Along with probably many other theological students I was told that Stephan Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, gave us our modern chapters, the ´ printer Robert Etienne in Paris our verses. That would have meant ‘around 1200’ for the ﬁrst, the year 1553 or 1555 for the second divi´ sion, because Etienne ﬁrst divided a French, and afterwards a Latin 1 Bible Edition. It is curious to notice how little work nowadays has been done to support or update these assumptions of previous generations. It is astonishing in view of the fact that the division of our Latin, westernEuropean Bibles into chapters was so important. The chapter division has been taken over in the Hebrew Bibles (ﬁrst in the 15th century), as well as a little bit later in the Greek ones. It is curious also, because of the great inﬂuence of the chapters in our reading of the Bible. Work on chapters has almost only been done at the end of the 19th century, more than 100 years ago. The great studies of the Protestant Swiss scholar Samuel Berger, the French Catholics Eug`ene Mangenot and Jean-Pierre Paulin Martin, and ﬁnally the Austrian Professor Otto Schmid working in Graz – who was possibly convinced by Heinrich Deniﬂe to take on the subject – have probably been forgotten.2 There is just a trickle of very rare new contributions by the French Aumery d’Esneval and Dominique Barth´elemy (in one of his last contributions to biblical scholarship), and by the Jewish scholar Jordan Penkower.3 All this reminds us of how much work on this subject still has to be done. I am glad that the Pericope group has instituted a circle of 1

Cf. Schmid 1892, 109-110. As a guide to all these authors Mangenot 1899 might be useful. 3 Cf. d’Esneval 1978, Barth´elemy 2000, and Penkower 1998. 2

142

J.H.A. van Banning S.J.

people who investigate the Bible as it was divided into units in the past. Not only does that help us to understand how Holy Scripture was read in Antiquity, but it helps us also to avoid some of the awful mistakes in modern Bible editions and books and articles of biblical exegesis. Above all, it may help us to discover what treasures are accumulated in ancient chapter divisions. Hopefully this article might show some people how to use the chapter divisions more fruitfully . Let us begin with the conclusion, reached by Barth´elemy in the middle of an article of 1994, and which could easily be overlooked. I will give here an English translation: . . . We owe to Langton our division of Genesis into 50 chapters, of Exodus into 40, of Leviticus into 27, of Numbers into 36 and of Deuteronomy into 34. The length of these chapters varies in a proportion running from one to four, and on average a chapter has about 30 verses. For this length, it seems that he took as a model certain already traditional divisions of the Gospels. It also appears, that for the articulation of these sections, Langton got inspiration from the divisions of the Alcuine and Theodulphian Bibles. But it is very probable that contacts with Jews permitted him to take into account the divisions of the parashioth in cases, where earlier Latin sections had ignored these divisions.4 The ‘parashioth’ in this quotation probably mean the Palestinian ‘sedarim’, which in the rest of Barth´elemy’s article play such an important role (cf. pp. 278-290), because the Babylonian text counts only 54 sections in the whole of the Pentateuch (cf. Barth´elemy 2000, 27), and this was very unhelpful for the delimitation of the chapters of our Latin Bibles. E.g. the second chapter of Genesis began only in Gen. 6:9. The above paragraph contains three assertions: the chapters of the Pentateuch (only these are spoken about) in the Latin Bibles owe their length to some earlier Gospel divisions. The divisions made by the Bibles of Alcuin and Theodulph in the Carolingian age have served as a model to Langton. Apart from that some Jewish inﬂuence can be traced. 4

Barth´elemy 2000, 273; article ﬁrst published in 1994.

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 143 As far as the ﬁrst contention is concerned, this is proved by the booklet on the divisions by Schmid. He reminds us of some Carolingian Evangeliaria which have almost the same number and delimitation of the chapters as our modern Bibles. As a result, not the Jewish liturgical ‘sedarim’, but these Gospel divisions seem to have been the starting-point of Langton. Schmid wrote with regard to the Gospels: . . . we are confronted with yet another division into even larger paragraphs, which were mostly called ‘Breves’. They occur in almost all the manuscripts which have only the four Gospels (. . . ), which are found many times and especially in the Carolingian Age as presents of the emperors of that period (Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Charles the Bold, Arnulph) to churches and monasteries, mostly richly illustrated. According to this division Matthew had 28 (30), Mark 13 (12), Luke 20 and John 14 Breves.5

2 The Main Historical Divisions of the Bible In the article which Father Barth´elemy wrote in the year 1994, he distinguishes four diﬀerent divisions of the Hebrew Old Testament, and especially the Torah, which agree with the divisions discovered by Schmid more than a century earlier. In the ﬁrst place do we have the most well known Hebrew division into verses or ‘pesuqim’. They do not so much depend on the laws of Hebrew poetry, they merely remind us of the liturgical divisions of Tora, units meant for liturgical reading. A verse was the unity after which a Targumist was allowed to make a translation into the popular language, mostly Aramaic. The verse division, even if it was the most obvious division, seems to have originated quite late. Scholars mostly agree that the verses have not been determined before the 6th century in Palestine, though the acrostical Psalms 25 and 34 do prove the knowledge of the unit of the verse much earlier. The unit of the verse seems not to appear in the Bible Mss of Qumran.6 5

Schmid 1892, 30; translation of the author. Cf. for the details: 30-33 and 43. They are, however, attested in texts of Ben Sira and some apocryphal Hymns found at Qumran. Cf. Korpel 2000, 34. 6

144

J.H.A. van Banning S.J.

The second division which we know, which is even older than the previous one, can normally be observed in all the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible. It is the division into closed and open sections, Paragraphs or Paraschen.7 They are called ‘setumot’ (from μt's;, ‘to blockade’) and ‘petuchot’ (from the verb jt'P;, ‘to open’). This division is concerned with the meaning of the text. A large open space, of a few letters, is left in the manuscripts before a ‘setuma’; the rest of the line is left blank after a ‘petucha’. A ‘setuma’ may be extremely small, only a few words, as whenever the Decalogue is recorded. According to Maimonides, who made the normative count, there were 669 (290 ‘petuchot’ and 379 properly so called ‘setumot’) ‘setumot’ in the Pentateuch (Schmid 1892, 7); according to a more modern counting (Oesch 1979) there were 650 (271 + 379) ‘setumot’. This division may especially have inﬂuenced the division of the Alcuin Bibles.8 The third division is again much larger than the previous ones. It resembles more the modern chapters, already in the sense that one perceives the intention to create chapters of almost the same length. These are the ‘sedarim’ or ‘parashiot’. The ﬁrst division was more numerous and meant for a liturgical cycle of 31/2 years. It was especially in use in Palestine and it resembles most the modern chapter division. The second division constitutes larger units and 7

Siegfried Kreuzer speaks of ‘Paraschen’ in: Kreuzer et al. 1999, 31. It might be better to call them ‘small’ parashes in the case of a division like that of Maimonides – Maimonides was not the ﬁrst person who used this division – and ‘large’ parashes in the case of the chapters, which were read in the synagogues (cf. below 3rd division), as Schmid does: Schmid 1892, 7. 8 Schmid draws a comparison between the division which Cassiodore’s Bible showed, as far as the Pentateuch is concerned and the total number of Paraschen according to Maimonides, and sees deﬁnitively a parallel: 559 against 669 or 650. The analogy is even stronger, if you compare the individual books: Genesis (82 against 91); Exodus (139 against 164); Leviticus (89 against 98); Numbers (74 against 158); Deuteronomy (155 against 158) (Schmid 1892, 46-47). The division of the Latin Bible, which Schmid analyses here (and considers to be older than Cassiodore: Schmid 1892, 45), seems to be nothing else but the division which Barth´elemy calls ‘pre-alcuine’ (Barth´elemy 2000, 268-269), because it occurs in the Alcuine Bibles (cf. the table: Schmid 1892, 42), but existed already before, as the manuscripts Tours 10 and Amiens 6 (Bible of the abbot Mordramme of Corbie) from the end of the 8th century show. Dom Henri Quentin, one of the main compilers of the Critical edition of the Vulgate (which appeared from the year 1926 onwards in Rome) already pointed to these Mss (Quentin 1922, 268-9, 286-7).

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 145 was meant for readings for the Sabbaths of one single year. It seems to have been adopted especially in Babylon. Schmid wrote in in the year 1892 that some passages in the Talmud and other passages in rabbinical commentaries allow us to think of 154 ‘sedarim’ in the Pentateuch in Palestine, but only 54 ‘parashiot’ in Babylon at the same time (Schmid 1892, 7-11; the same numbers in Barth´elemy 2000, 270). Mangenot spoke in 1899 of 156 ‘sedarim’ sections in the Pentateuch (the same number emerges unexpectedly in Schmid 1892, 12): 42 in Genesis; 29 in Exodus; 23 in Leviticus; 32 in Numbers; 27 in Deuteronomy (Mangenot 1899, 559). The numbers of ‘sedarim’ of other books of the Bible, which apparently were created by the Masoretes, are mentioned by Schmid (12-13). In the case of the Prophets, the passages which were read during the Synagogue services were called ‘haphtarot’ (cf. Barth´elemy 2000, 284-5). They did not cover entire books, however, but only selected readings (cf. Schmid 1892, 11-12). There is a remote resemblance between the ‘sedarim’ in the Palestinian counting (154 or 156) and the chapters of the Pentateuch in some of the Mss of the Bible translation of Theodulph of Orleans (109), who stood in contact with Jews (Barth´elemy 2000, 272). If one compares the numbers of Theodulph and of the ‘sedarim’ in Mangenot the relation is: 38 against 42 in Genesis; 18 against 29 in Exodus; 16 against 23 in Leviticus; 20 against 32 in Numbers; 20 against 27 in Deuteronomy.9 This third division is very uncommon in the Mss of the Hebrew Bible, but it is at least present in lists of the beginnings of the ‘sedarim’, which were sermonized in the liturgical meetings, which have survived. They must have existed from early on. If they are 9 The numbers are found in Quentin 1922, 264. Cf. also the table in Schmid 1892, 42. Theodulph improved gradually on his translation. In the later Mss a division into chapters appeared. Barth´elemy mentions two of the Mss with this division: one in Paris (Bibl. Nat. lat. 9380; it once belonged to the family ‘de Mesmes’), and one in le Puy (‘Codex anicensis’) (Barth´elemy 2000, 271-2). Other Mss are mentioned in the modern critical Vulgate edition. Quentin underlines the fact that the same division can be found in the very old Codex Amiatinus, if one disregards the text of Genesis in that codex (Quentin 1922, 263-6) and some annotations in its margins (Schmid 1892, 98; Quentin 1922, 286-7). This is true, even if, on the other hand, the text of Codex Amiatinus is more belonging to the Alcuine version of the Bible (438-52, 508, 520).

146

J.H.A. van Banning S.J.

indicated in old Mss of the Bible, we are never sure whether the scribe or a later user of the Ms put them into the margins. However, they are now surely indicated in the margins of our most important Hebrew Bibles (BHK of Kittel-Kahle; BHS). The most inﬂuential division of the Bible has sections which are usually bigger than the ‘setumot’ and ‘petuchot’ (2nd division), and smaller than the ‘parashiot’ from Babylon, but which resemble very much the ‘sedarim’ which were in use in Palestine (3rd division). This important division into chapters was not introduced before the foundation of the University of Paris which, according to Deniﬂe, took place not earlier than the years 1200-1208.10 According to our modern Bibles there are 187 chapters in the Pentateuch, only 23 or 21 more than in the Palestinian ‘sedarim’: 50 in Genesis; 40 in Exodus; 27 in Leviticus; 36 in Numbers; 34 in Deuteronomy. These chapters were ﬁrst used by Jews in the years 1437-1445, at the time when the Concordance of Rabbi Isaac Nathan was compiled, a book which was printed only in the 16th century (Venice 1523: Penkower 1998, 363). According to Schmid, they appeared in the Hebrew Bibles only in 1529, when the second Bible by Bomberg was printed.11

3 The ‘Paris Exemplar’ of the Bible In this article, I will deal mainly with the last of these four divisions, the division into chapters which largely resembles the ‘sedarim’, and only occasionally make some reference to the other ones. However, before I deal with this division of Stephan Langton, I have to refer to one other important publication which took place while Langton was living. I am speaking of an edition which came forward during his later years, when he was Archbishop of Canterbury (1207-1228). Around the year 1224 a Bible was created in Paris, designated as the ‘Exemplar Parisiensis’ in the writings of Roger Bacon. The fact of the creation of this uniform Bible for the theological students, which was unearthed with excellent proofs at the end of the 19th 10

Cf. Schmid 1892, 95; cf. Landgraf 1937, 75: ‘at the end of the 12th century’. Schmid 1892, 105. Penkower corrects him: Already the ﬁrst rabbinic Bible, printed by Bomberg in the year 1517 (edited by the convert to christianity Felix of Prato), had a similar chapter division (Penkower 1998, 350-1). 11

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 147 century, should be drawn more to the attention of modern scholars. The importance of this biblical text can hardly be overestimated. At the end of the 16th century the popes Sixtus V and Clement VIII, who were responsible for the Sixto-Clementine Bible (1592), did not know of the existence of the Paris Bible, and so the saying became operative, that those who do not know history, are obliged to repeat it: they repeated many of the mistakes made in the past in Paris while publishing their Bible text, which had such a lasting inﬂuence. The existence of the Paris exemplar of the Bible, which came under such an exaggerated attack by Roger Bacon in the sixties of the same 13th century, appears to have been hidden from the scholarly world for a long time. It seems that historians only started to reﬂect upon it after Bacons writings in question had been discovered. The need for a sound biblical text at the beginning of that century can, however, be easily understood. Students ﬂocked together in Paris from all parts of Europe at that time, all with their own biblical text. How could a teacher ensure that they would ﬁnd his quotations? On top of that, almost each Bible had its own particular division. There were many systems of division in use at the end of the 12th century and everyone who studies them will be will be amazed at their diversity. The Paris exemplar of the Bible was made by university professors and book traders in a superb collaboration. The Paris Bible was a great service to theology. The Bibles were soon recognizable and, apart from that, for the ﬁrst time a great eﬀort was made to arrive at a handsome format for a book which would be transported everywhere. Each copy carried at the end an onomasticon and this part too had been inspired by a similar work probably compiled by Stephan Langton. Each biblical book had the division into chapters that we use nowadays and call ‘the chapters of Stephan Langton’.12 The text of the Paris exemplar was not a great step forward. The compilation certainly was aiming at reproducing the text of Jerome, but it happened also to oﬀer a text which was heavily dependent upon the Bible of Alcuin. And that was certainly not a guarantee for 12 For some modern discussions of this Bible text, see Smalley 1983, 334, Light 1984, 75-93, Dahan 1990, 276, and, of course, d’Esneval 1978.

148

J.H.A. van Banning S.J.

a good text, even though the latter Bible had already been aiming at reconstituting the text by eliminating the variants of the ‘Vetus Latina’ for the books which had been translated anew by Jerome (Light 1984, 63). Where variants of Alcuin did not show up up in the Paris exemplar, those of Theodulph of Orleans seem to have been present everywhere. The text did not improve greatly in the Carolingian Bibles (Quentin 1922, 385-388). It was particularly disastrous, as would once again emerge, when the Sixto-Clementine text was produced, because mostly the variants of several families were combined. The search for ‘completeness’ of the text made it very remote from the compilation of Jerome, and even more distant from the original Hebrew text. There can be no question about it: It was the Paris Bible that made Stephan Langton’s division into chapters popular (Schmid 1892, 94-95). However, this may also evoke the question of whether Stephan Langton or the creators of the Paris Bible put the ﬁnal touch to the modern division into chapters. Even if Langton started this type of division, it could be that that the Paris Bible and also Hugh of St. Cher in his Commentary to the whole Bible (his ‘Postilla’, created in the years 1530-1544) perfected a system, invented before.13

4 The Date of Origin of the Divisions of Langton The best proof that Langton divided the Bible into chapters consists of a manuscript in Paris, which gives, on four pages or two folios, the whole division of Langton, by quoting the beginning words of each chapter (Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 14417, fol. 125-126). In this Ms the list is sandwiched between the ‘Postilla’ of Hugh of St. Cher on Genesis (fol. 1-124) and ‘glosses’ or exegetical remarks of Stephan Langton on the literal meaning of the ‘Historia scholastica’ of Petrus Comestor, a book which was in use as a handbook in academic circles around 1200 (fol. 127 ﬀ.).14 13 Schmid mentions also other possibilities: the creators of the correctoria, which appeared regularly after 1224, or some unknown Parisian professor might have perfected the system. He himself thinks the former persons to be most probably responsible (Schmid 1892, 98). 14 It is planned to edit this Parisian text separately in a volume of the Pericope

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 149 There is, however, other evidence. First of all one has to deal with Langton’s exegetical works. A great number of commentaries to biblical books by the future Archbishop have been preserved, although only few have been edited. They were apparently all written before 1203. They show that he had a great interest in the division of the Bible into chapters. He always indicates very precisely where his quotations can be found. Usually he does this by indicating the beginning words of the chapter, where one should look. There is more. Arthur Landgraf, a famous medievalist, who himself became an auxiliary bishop in Bamberg, showed that in many works Langton used the new numbers of the chapters (Landgraf 1937, 85-87, 90, 93). However, he found only one New Testament place with an indication of the new chapter number: 1 John 3 in Salzburg, Stiftsbibl. St. Peter, a X 19, p. 40 (Landgraf 1937, 85; cf. 87). Also Petrus Cantor († 1197) used chapter numbers in his exegetical works, but not yet the new ones: Landgraf thinks that he might have encouraged Langton in his work (Landgraf 1937, 78-82, 94). Langton must presumably have divided the Bible into chapters before the year 1207, because 1206 he was made a cardinal by the pope, who had been his pupil, and a year later he was obliged to go to Canterbury. All of this came about because the nomination to the highest bishopric in England had come to an impasse. Otto Schmid, who has been cited frequently above, found a proof that the division, so well known, must have been in existence in the year 1216, which later even was reduced to 1208. Robert de Cour¸con wrote a speciﬁc work shortly after 1201. This date is indicated by the fact that a council in Paris of that year is mentioned in the work, a great theological-canonical Summa, which was meant to celebrate his much beloved teacher Petrus Cantor. In this Summa, which bore the title ‘Consiliarium Petri Cantoris Parisiensis’, the new chapter divisions occur at several places. According to Schmid, this book was ﬁnished before the death of Pope Innocence III in 1216 (Schmid 1892, 94). Landgraf, who quotes the discovery of Schmid with admiration, Series. There seems to be one other copy of this text at Oxford: Magdalen College, Ms. 168, fol. 51ﬀ. (‘Capitulatio bibliothecae secundum magistrum Stephanum’: cf. d’Esneval 1978, 561 n. 9).

150

J.H.A. van Banning S.J.

was able to prove that the work must have been completed between 1204-1208 (Landgraf 1937, 76, 87-88). In the year 1208 Robert de Cour¸con apparently left for the Holy Land. Of course, Robert does not give us the whole set of chapter divisions, but seems to have used divisions similar to the ones in use in our time. There is also some explicit proof that the new division came from Langton, even if it is a bit late. The Dominican historian Nicholas Trevet, who died more than a century later in 1328, witnessed that Langton divided the Bible into chapters. Also Codex 487 of the Bodleian Library (Oxford), apparently from 1448, quotes some author on fol. 110, who said that Langton developed the chapters. This author seems to have been Henry of Knyghton from Chester, writing circa 1395 (Schmid 1892, 56-57; Mangenot 1899, 564). Casimir Oudin had already seen this Ms (Schmid 1892, 57-58). Maybe the best indirect conﬁrmation is to be found in Ms. 340 from the city library of Lyons, which was discovered by Samuel Berger at the end of the 19th century, and which oﬀers the text of the book of Proverbs with the following introduction: Incipiunt parabolae Salomonis, distinctae per capitula secundum mag. Stephanum archiepiscopum 15 Schmid considered it possible that the University of Paris commissioned Langton to make a division into chapters (Schmid 1892, 95). Some doubts remain whether his chapters were in the Paris exemplar of the Bible from the beginning. The critical edition of the Vulgate, prepared by the monks of the Abbey of St. Jerome in Rome (now dissolved), which was compiled in the 20th century, does indicate the variants of manuscripts with the ‘Parisian text’, but only one – the Ms from the Biblioth`eque Mazarine (Schmid: Nr.29; nowadays: Nr.5), which dates from 1231 – does seem to have the modern chapters (Schmid 1892, 95).16 About the Bible from the Sorbonne University (Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 15467) I have no information: the Benedictines from St. Jerome did not indicate how this manuscript was divided. The Bible from 15

Schmid 1892, 95; Mangenot 1899, 564. The compilers of the ‘Biblia Sacra’, which appeared from 1926 onwards, gave only the ‘capitula’ of the old Mss, and by this title the summaries were meant, which appeared normally at the beginning of their medieval biblical Mss. 16

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 151 the convent of St. Jacques (Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 16719-16722) seems to have acquired chapters only after a later correction of the Mss (Schmid 1892, 103).

5 Some Remarks on the Chapters in the Parisian List It is an embarrassment that so far no modern critical edition has appeared of the Ms. Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 14417, fol. 125-126. I hope to be able to provide it in a separate volume. So far scholars have to be content with two almost contemporary editions from the end of the 19th century, which appeared shortly after the summary had been discovered. The problem is that these editions will hardly have made available the text to many scholars. The two editions are:17 1. Jean-Pierre Paulin Martin, Introduction ` a la Critique G´en´erale de l’Ancien Testament: De l’Origine du Pentateuque, tome second: Le¸cons profess´ees ` a l’Ecole Sup´erieure de th´eologie de Paris, en 1887-1888, Paris n.d. (here: 464-71). In a very reduced form also accessible in J.J.P. Martin, ‘Le texte Parisien de la Vulgate’, Le mus´eon 8 (1889) 444-65; 9 (1890) 55-70, 301-16 (here 463-64 n. 1); ¨ 2. Otto Schmid, Uber verschiedene Eintheilungen der Heiligen Schrift: Insbesondere u ¨ber die Capitel-Eintheilung Stephan Langtons im XIII. Jahrhunderte: Festschrift der K. k. Universit¨ at Graz, aus Anlass der Jahresfeier am 15. November 1891, Graz 1892 (here: 59-92), 59-92. The datings of the list diﬀer considerably. Martin spoke of a ‘writing in a ﬁne hand, which is nevertheless very readable, from the end of the 12th or the beginning of the 13th century’ (Martin 1888, 465). Schmid, however, thought to recognize rather a hand from ‘the middle of the thirteenth century’ (Schmid 1892, 58). First of all, we have to reﬂect upon the kind of text we have before us. It does not seem to be an original work by Langton himself. This conclusion was reached by Schmid. For that too many mistakes are present. Probably it was not even written by a theologian, but rather by a student cleric or even by a bookseller (Schmid 1892, 92 n. 1). A 17

I used the edition by Schmid, whose edition is the only complete one.

152

J.H.A. van Banning S.J.

typical mistake occurs at the beginning of Ch. 34 of Exodus. Here in fact two beginnings are recorded: Ac deinceps praeciditur (Exod. 34:1); tollamque manum (33:23). The ﬁrst words are the beginning of the ﬁrst verse of our Ch. 34, the last words the beginning of the ﬁnal verse of our Ch. 33. It seems that the compiler of the Parisian list had to make up his mind according to what he found annotated in the margins of some Mss of the Bible. Probably Langton’s divisions were recorded into a Bible that was once divided in another manner, or even not at all divided into chapters. In any case, the compiler of the list of the chapters sometimes had diﬃculty making up his mind how the numbering of Langton really was meant. In some cases he did not record the very ﬁrst words of a chapter, but the ﬁrst distinguishing words (cf. Schmid 1892, 92, n.2). This expedient was especially used for the book of Ezekiel: Et ﬁli hominis, vaticinare ad populum (13:1-2) instead of Et factus est sermo Domini ad me dicens: Fili hominis (13:1-2); Fili hominis, quid ﬁet de ligno vitis (15:2) instead of Et factus est sermo Domini ad me dicens: Fili hominis (15:1-2); Fili hominis, notas fac Jerusalem abominationes (16:2) instead of Et factus est sermo Domini ad me dicens: Fili hominis (16:1-2); Fili hominis, propone aenigma (17:2) instead of Et factus est sermo Domini ad me dicens: Fili hominis (17:1-2), etc. However, it was also put into practice elsewhere: Anima quae peccaverit et contempto Domino (Lev. 6:2) instead of Locutus est Dominus ad Mosen dicens (Lev. 6:1); Tolle Aaron cum ﬁliis suis (Lev. 8:2) instead of Locutusque est Dominus ad Mosen dicens (Lev. 8:1);

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 153 Loquere Aaron et ﬁliis eius et cunctis ﬁliis Israel (Lev. 17:2) instead of Et locutus est Dominus ad Mosen dicens (Lev. 17:1); Loquere ad omnem coetum Israel: ego sum Dominus (cf. Lev. 19:2) instead of Locutus est Dominus ad Mosen dicens (Lev. 19:1); Usquequo aﬄigitis animam meam (Job 19:2) instead of Respondens autem Job dixit (Job 19:1); Idcirco cogitationes meae variae (cf. Job 20:2) instead of Respondens autem Sophar Naamathites dixit (Job 20:1), etc.18 The compiler also seems to have made several mistakes. Maybe it was the bad quality of his work which prevented modern editors from thinking about a new edition, but medieval authors often provide a list in some haphazard way. Many times the eyes of the author seem to have jumped a few words too early or too late in the Latin text before his eyes: Gen. 7 begins in the middle of a discourse of God (Gen. 6: 21: Tolles igitur ); maybe Gen. 6:22 (Fecit ergo Noe omnia) was meant; Gen. 13 begins in the same vein, while the Pharao is speaking (Gen. 12:19b: Nunc igitur ecce conjux tua); maybe Gen. 12:20 (Praecepitque Pharao) was meant; Gen. 44 begins six words too early at the end of 43:33: biberuntque et inebriati sunt cum eo (‘they drank with him and got drunk’), etc. Many times the diﬀerence is only one or one and a half verses, so that one gets the impression that the compiler consulted a Bible which was narrowly written and had been divided only in the margin. Therefore, the compiler often had to guess where the real beginning 18

Martin also points to the omission of the word ‘Onus’ together with the accompanying name from the ﬁrst words of some chapters from the Prophets (Martin 1888, 471-2), but this can only be discerned at the beginning of Isa. 15 and Isa. 17.

154

J.H.A. van Banning S.J.

of the chapter was meant to be. His interpretation was sometimes inappropriate. However, one has to be attentive: Sometimes the beginnings of the list are conﬁrmed by the incipits in the Commentary on the whole Bible by Hugh of St. Cher. We also have to ask whether only one list of Langton’s chapters existed. One gets the impression that the Parisian list represents the last but one stage of the division made by the venerable English professor. Certainly astonishing is, that if we compare the number of all the chapters of each book of the Bible with the numbers of the modern chapters, we come to the conclusion, that the diﬀerence mostly originated from the fact that afterwards only one chapter was added, respectively withdrawn. Langton, as recorded by the Parisian list, had at the beginning (before the last version of his chapter division was put out), probably one chapter less in 2 Kgs / 4 Reg. (now: 25); Job (now: 42); Baruch (now: 5; or 6 if you count the letter of Jeremiah); Ezek. (now: 48); Joel (now: 419 ); Mark (now: 16); Luke (now: 24); John (now: 21); Acts (now: 28); 2 Cor. (now: 13); Gal. (now: 6). In one case only Langton seems to have had originally one chapter more. He divided the letter of Jude into two chapters (now: 1). Also, there are six books in the list of Paris which have a completely diﬀerent division: 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, 1-2 Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah counted as one book by Langton), Tobit, Judith, Esther. These six books probably followed each other in the Ms of the Bible on which Langton was working. They still follow each other in the modern Vulgate editions (e.g. the one of Weber). It may be that the list of Paris that records Langton’s chapters was compiled before he touched these books. Or it was made on the basis of a Bible which reproduced the one but last version of Langton’s division. In any case, in three of these six books (Ezra/Nehemiah, Judith and Esther) Langton has considerably more chapters; in the other ones he has considerably less: 19 However, not in the modern Vulgate edition of Weber, who counts Ch. 3 as still belonging to Ch. 2 as 2:28-32.

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 155 1 Chron. (Langton 13; now: 29); 2 Chron. (Langton 20; now: 36); Esd. (Langton 36 [14 + 22]; now: 23 [10 + 13]); Tob. (Langton 11; now: 14); Jdt. (Langton 26; now: 16); Est. (Langton 22; now: 1620 ). In all these cases Hugo of St. Cher has the same chapter numbers as our modern Bible editions. It seems then that Langton made more than one division, as was already suggested as a possibility by Schmid (Schmid 1892, 93). It should be assumed that the Parisian list gives the earlier form of a division, or, if the list went through more than two stages, certainly not the last form. Also remarkable about the list is the sequence and the number of books that were considered canonical. There is no indication that the prayer of Manasseh, which was often treated as an additional chapter to 2 Chron., and 3 Ezra or 4 Ezra were included in the Bible that was divided by Langton. Therefore, the number of books is exactly the same as the number accepted by the Roman-Catholics at the Council of Trent. One gets the impression that Langton did not accept those apocryphal books, which, however, were later part of the Paris exemplar of the Bible, and were treated by Luther on a par with books like Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. Already Martin drew attention to the fact that 3 and 4 Ezra were not divided into chapters by Langton.21 The Prayer of Manasseh is so short that it could have been in his Bible after 2 Chron. 33 or 2 Chron. 36, but it did not receive a separate chapter number in his division.22 20

These high numbers are reached by taking into account the extra chapters of the Latin Esther. 21 Cf. Martin 1888, 467: ‘Il est ` a remarquer que Langton ne capitule pas le troisi`eme et le quatri`eme livre d’Esdras.’ 22 The Prayer of Manasseh was regarded as a complement to 2 Chron. 33:13 or 19. Hans Volz and Eva Oßwald contend, that the Prayer did not occur in Vulgata Mss before the 13th century (Volz 1959, 294; Oßwald 1974, 18). Apparently, however, it did occur in the Bible to which the Glossa Ordinaria was made as a commentary in the ﬁrst half of the 12th century, because after 2 Chron. 36 (the last chapter), according to the still best printed edition of Adolph Rusch (Rusch 1480 or 1481, Vol. 2, p. 260), its verses were commented upon just as the other verses of 2 Chron. This shows how much the Glossa Ordinaria determined the range of biblical texts, which were accepted by the compilers of the Parisian Bible of around 1224.

156

J.H.A. van Banning S.J.

As far as the sequence of the books is concerned, here we also see that it is very much the same as the one in the Decree of the Council of Trent from the 8th of April 1546,23 with only two exceptions: the Acts of the Apostles were put by the list – and possibly by Langton – at the end of the Bible, before the last book, the Apocalypse. In the list – and probably in the Bible, on which Langton worked – the letter of St. James does not follow the two letters of St. Peter and the three letters of St. John, but it precedes all of them.24

6 The Role of Hugh of St. Cher Hugh of St. Cher († 1263), the ﬁrst Dominican to become a cardinal (1244), undertook to write a commentary on the whole Bible and this ‘Postilla’ was, arguably, the best commentary of the whole Middle Ages. It was written for the most part in the years 12301236, while he was acting as a professor in Paris (magister regens) on the ﬁrst chair of the Dominican Order (the second chair was for non-French Dominicans, which included those who came from the South of France). The Parisian professor might have got help for his writing from many brothers, who copied texts for him, took notes, and wrote fair copies, especially since he was soon the superior of the monastery of St. Jacques in Paris and also Provincial. He was in fact the second Dominican to obtain a professorial chair, while the ﬁrst, Roland of Cremona, taught, at the most, two years. Before Hugh of St. Cher entered the order in Paris in the year 1225, he must already have been teaching Canonical Law at the University.25 Hugh of St. Cher must have had a great interest in the Bible, and especially in its division. According to Beryl Smalley, in him we see the entrance of Aristotle into medieval exegesis, even if it is still largely formal.26 He quotes the Bible many times and indicates always, with only very few omissions, the chapters from which his quotations were taken, with the striking exception that no numbers of Psalms were given. The references reveal to us which kind of 23

Cf. Sessio IV: Denzinger, Sch¨ onmetzer 1967, 365 (Nr. 1501-1503). Martin claims that from the times of Langton onwards there is a certain constancy in the sequence of the biblical books in the Latin Mss: Martin 18891890, 457. 25 For him, cf. Bataillon et al. 2004. 26 Smalley 1983, esp. 295-296. 24

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 157 chapter divisions his Bible had, but he also many times started his commentary on a particular chapter with an overall view of its contents, which were then analysed as coherent units of text. For his ‘Postilla super totam Bibliam’ we are dealing with editions from 1754 and earlier: they are so voluminous that after the 18th century printing stopped. The last editions are especially recommendable because they do not have the abbreviations of the medieval Mss. All editions of Hugh of St. Cher go back to the one edition made by the great scholar and printer Johannes Amerbach in Basel in the years 1498-1502. Amerbach was ordered to do his work by the most reputable printer of the 15th century, Hans Koberger of Nuremberg. It took Amerbach ﬁve years to ﬁnish the job. Did he change the chapter divisions which he found in his Mss and the references of Hugh of St. Cher? It is unlikely, because then his printed text would have clashed many times with Hugh of St. Cher’s summaries of the biblical chapters. Not with all the books, but especially in his commentaries on Luke, the Prophets and the Pauline letters, he started his commentary on each chapter by indicating the perfect structure of the chapter. We are reasonably sure that the Bible which Hugh of St. Cher used was the Paris Bible, that he started from its chapter divisions,27 and that Amerbach himself was very careful with the structure and counts in Hugh of St. Cher’s text. Many deviations from the modern division in the list of chapters by Stephan Langton in the Parisian Ms are conﬁrmed by the chapters in Hugh of St. Cher’s Postilla. I noted the following agreements in the ﬁrst 14 books of the Bible: Gen. 6 starts in Gen. 5:31b, one half verse before the modern chapter: Noe vero cum quingentorum (Ed. 1498: quire b, p. 7 recto, col. 1); 27

The thesis, that Hugh of St. Cher used the Paris Bible to comment upon, is conﬁrmed by the fact that the Mss Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 59 and lat. 156, which contain a Bible with commentary that was copied around 1300 and once owned by Pope Benedict XIII, oﬀer the introduction to Hugh of St. Cher’s Correctorium (which oﬀered critical notes to the Parisian Examplar) at the end of the mss.: Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 159, Fol. 467r. The Mss consist in fact of a biblical text surrounded by the complete text of the shorter or second version of Hugh of St. Cher’s Postilla. The presence of the ‘Introduction to the Correctorium’ suggests that the biblical text in these Mss is a Parisian text, but corrected with the help of Hugh’s Correctorium. For the date of the Mss, see Stirnemann 2004, 40.

158

J.H.A. van Banning S.J. Gen. 37 starts in Gen. 37:2b: Joseph cum sedecim esset annorum (Ed. 1498: quire h, p. 5 recto, col. 2); Lev. 7 starts with 7:11, eleven verses after the present division: Haec est lex hostiae paciﬁcorum (Ed. 1498: quire r, p. 1 recto, col. 2); Deut. 23 starts one verse earlier, in 22:30: Non accipiet homo uxorem fratris sui (Ed. 1498: quire B, p. 3 verso, col. 1); 2 Kgs 19 (18 for Langton) starts in 19:1b: Ingressusque est domum Domini ; 2 Kgs 21 (20 for Langton) starts in 20:21: Dormivitque Ezechias cum patribus; 2 Chron. 10 (6 for Langton) starts in 9:30: Regnavit autem Salomon; 2 Chron. 12 (7 for Langton) starts in 12:2: Anno autem quinto.

Mostly the diﬀerence consists of one or one and a half verses only. The exception is Lev. 7, where the diﬀerence of the divisions by Langton and Hugh of St. Cher from the modern capitulation is a considerable one. So we have to be careful in thinking that the diﬀerences between the list of chapters by Langton and a list of modern chapters will automatically depend upon misunderstandings of the compiler of the list in the Parisian Ms. One could suppose that in every case where Hugh of St. Cher deviates from Langton’s division he follows the division of the Paris Bible, not that of Langton. Barth´elemy, who seems to have studied at least bits of Hugh of St. Cher’s Postilla, suggests that at one place, Hugh of St. Cher must have improved on the previous chapter division, so that at least here he must have been independent of the Paris exemplar of the Bible: Langton begins Ch.11 [of Gen.] with ‘hae familiae . . . ’ [= Gen. 10:32] It appears that it was Hugh of St. Cher, who, while quoting Augustine and the Gloss, went further and

Reﬂections upon the Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton 159 put the beginning one verse later. In fact, Augustine delimitates (in De civitate Dei, XIV, 4 ) very clearly Gen. 11:1-9 as one pericope.28 It can be presumed that Hugh of St. Cher, as a great expert and user of the Fathers, has concluded from Augustine that the story of Babel should really be seen as beginning in Gen. 11:1. One question still has to be answered: Who put the ﬁnal touch to the division of the Bible into chapters, which was so successfully started by Stephan Langton and had such a lasting impact not only on Latin, but also on Greek and Hebrew Bibles? Was it a scholar like Hugh of St. Cher or were the booksellers responsible for this so hugely inﬂuential format of the Holy Book? It is still not very clear how long it took to reach total agreement on the present day division, but from the Parisian list it is clear how important the role of Stephan Langton in its development was.

28

Barth´elemy 2000, 286; translated by the author.

Bibliography Barth´elemy 2000 – D. Barth´elemy, ‘Les traditions anciennes de division du texte biblique de la Torah’, in: D. Barth´elemy, D´ecouvrir ´ l’Ecriture (Lectio divina, Hors s´erie), Paris 2000 (ﬁrst published 1994 in: M´elanges Marguerite Harl). Bataillon et al. 2004 – L.-J. Bataillon, G. Dahan, P.-M. Gy (eds), Hugues de Saint-Cher ( † 1263): Bibliste et th´eologien: Actes du colloque ‘Hugues de Saint-Cher, o. p., bibliste et th´eologien’, Paris, Centre d’´etudes du Saulchoir, 13-15 mars 2000 (Biblioth`eque d’histoire culturelle du moyen ˆage, 1), Turnhout 2004. Dahan 1990 – G. Dahan, Les intellectuels chr´etiens et les juifs au moyen ˆ age (Patrimoines: Judaisme), Paris 1990. Denzinger, Sch¨onmetzer 1967 – H. Denzinger, A. Sch¨onmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, deﬁnitionum et declarationum de rebus ﬁdei et morum, Barcelona 34 1967. d’Esneval 1978 – A. d’Esneval, ‘La division de la Vulgate Latine ´ en chapitres dans l’Edition Parisienne du XIIIe si`ecle’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et th´eologiques 62 (1978), 559-568. Korpel 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Introduction to the Series Pericope’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000, 1-50. Kreuzer et al. 1999 – S. Kreuzer et al., Proseminar I - Altes Testament: ein Arbeitsbuch, Stuttgart 1999. Landgraf 1937 – A. Landgraf, ‘Die Schriftzitate in der Scholastik um die Wende des 12. zum 13. Jahrhundert’, Bib. 18 (1937), 74-94. Light 1984 – L. Light, ‘Versions et r´evisions du texte biblique’, in: P. Rich´e, G. Lobrichon (eds), Le Moyen Age et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps, 4), Paris 1984, 55-93. Mangenot 1899 – E. Mangenot, ‘Chapitres de la Bible’, in: Dictionnaire de la Bible, t. 2 (C-F), Paris 1899, 559-65. Martin 1888 – J.-P. P. Martin, Introduction ` a la Critique G´en´erale de l’Ancien Testament: De l’Origine du Pentateuque, tome second: ´ Le¸cons profess´ees ` a l’Ecole Sup´erieure de th´eologie de Paris, en 1887-1888, Paris n.d.

The Chapter Divisions of Stephan Langton – Bibliography

161

Martin 1889-1890 – J.-P. P. Martin, ‘Le texte Parisien de la Vulgate’, Le Mus´eon 8 (1889), 444-65; 9 (1890), 55-70, 301-16. Oesch 1979 – J.M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer u ¨berlieferten Gliederung im hebr¨ aischen Text des Alten Testaments, Freiburg 1979. Oßwald 1974 – E. Oßwald (ed.), Das Gebet Manasses (J¨ udische Schriften aus hellenistisch-r¨omischer Zeit, Bd. 4, Lief. 1), G¨ utersloh 1974. Penkower 1998 – J. Penkower, ‘The Chapter Divisions in the 1525 Rabbinic Bible’, VT 48 (1998), 350-74. Quentin 1922 – H. Quentin, M´emoire sur l’´etabilissement du texte de la Vulgate, Partie 1: Octateuque (Collectanea Biblica Latina, 6), Rome 1922. Rusch 1480 or 1481 – K. Froehlich, M.T. Gibson (eds), Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria: Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, 4 vol., Turnhout 1992. ¨ Schmid 1892 – O. Schmid, Uber verschiedene Eintheilungen der Heiligen Schrift: Insbesondere u ¨ber die Capitel-Eintheilung Stephan Langtons im XIII. Jahrhunderte: Festschrift der K. k. Universit¨ at Graz, aus Anlass der Jahresfeier am 15. November 1891, Graz 1892. Smalley 1983 – B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, Oxford 3 1983. Stirnemann 2004 - P. Stirnemann, ‘Les manuscrits de la Postille’, in: Bataillon et al. 2004, 31-42. ¨ Volz 1959 – H. Volz, ‘Zur Uberlieferung des Gebetes Manasse’, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kirchengeschichte 70 (1959), 293-307.

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament An Appraisal Wilfred G.E. Watson Northumberland – England

In recent years, especially in the Netherlands, biblical scholars have been raising the issue of the signiﬁcance of text divisions as given in ancient manuscripts. Their work is to some extent a reminder that such divisions are important but it is also a re-evaluation of these markers in respect of colometry and exegesis. If we do not divide a text into its structural units correctly, then we will fail to grasp its meaning. This contribution is an attempt to determine to what extent their method is valid, particularly in respect of its bearing on exegesis. It is illustrated by examples from Ugaritic and Hebrew.

1 Markings in Ancient Near Eastern Texts As is recognised, the special markings on clay tablets and ancient manuscripts can be of signiﬁcance in indicating lineation, text divisions and structure, as well as metre.1 Recent work in this area includes a thesis by A.F. Robertson.2 Also, in a lengthy paper, Ingo Kottsieper has dealt with paragraph markers in letters from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Amarna, Aramaic and in Hebrew texts from before the Persian period, Phoenician texts (KAI 1, 4, 10, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, etc.), the Mesha Stele, the Tale of Ahiqar, texts from Qumran and other texts.3 He concludes that, generally speaking, such markers were not used in Northwest Semitic texts whereas they were present in the literary texts from Qumran. As mentioned, the Ugaritic texts provide us with clear markings and spacing. One of the ﬁrst scholars to examine Ugaritic tablets systematically in respect of word-dividers was Horwitz.4 Also, in his grammar of Ugaritic, Tropper provides a comprehensive survey of 1

See Watson 1982. Also signiﬁcant are acrostics; cf. Brug 1990. Robertson 1994, although apparently he does not mention the Story of Ahiqar, which also uses markers (see next note); see also Robertson 1999. For markings in Babylonian, see Rensburg 1997 (unavailable to me). 3 Kottsieper 2003. 4 Horwitz 1971; see also Horwitz 1973, 1974, 1977, 1979. 2

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament

163

markings on the Ugaritic tablets.5 More recently, Korpel examined unit delimitation in the Ugaritic cultic texts, mentioning some Babylonian and Hebrew parallels.6 Independently Mabie has examined all the horizontal lines marked on clay tablets written in Ugaritic.7 Although not discussed by Tropper,8 KTU 1.10, called ‘Baal, the Heifer, and Anat’ by Wyatt,9 is of particular interest for stichography and stichometry, because there the lines on the tablet are written out stichographically.10 Unfortunately, however, much of the text is missing. It is curious that there are no horizontal lines at all in this text, and therefore it was not included in Mabie’s survey.11 As a sample analysis, I have set out the ﬁrst twelve lines of column ii since column i is badly preserved.12 units w.d stresses letters syntax 2(?) ? 2 8 nom. ii01 [b l bbhth]xxx[x] 4(?) ? 4 12 nom. ii02 [il. hd. bqr ]b. hklh ———— blank line on tablet ———— 3 2 3 12 V-S ii03 wt nyn. g˙ lm. b l 3 2 3 10 ‘V’-S-M ii04 in. b l. bbhth 3 2 3 12 <‘V’>-S-M ii05 ilhd. bqrb. hklh 3 2 3 12 O-V-S ii06 qˇsthn. ahd. bydh 3 2 3 12 O--S ii07 wqs. th. ˘bm. ymnh 3 2 10 adv.-V-O ii08 idk. lytn. pnm 5 3 4/5 15 nom. ii09 tk. ah. ˇsmk. mlat rumm ˘ btlt. nt 4 2 4 13 V-O-S ii10 tˇsu knp. 4 3 4 12 V-O-V-M ii11 tˇsu. knp. wtr. b p 5 3 4/5 15 nom. ii12 tk. ah ˇsmk. mlat. rumm ˘ 5 Tropper 2000, 27, 68-72. 6 Korpel 2005. 7 Mabie 2004. 8 Tropper 2000, 68-72, § 21.4. 9 Wyatt 1998, 155. 10 ‘Aparte su n´ıtida caligraf´ıa, el rasgo m´ as llamativo de la tablilla es su disposici´ on esticom´etrica: cada l´ınea corresponde a un hemistiquio, con la abstracci´ on de que llene o no el espacio disponible; ´este es un dato que debe tenerse en cuenta a la hora de la interpretaci´ on del texto y servir de base a toda posible teor´ıa sobre la m´etrica ugar´ıtica’ (Del Olmo Lete 1981, 463; see n. 3). See also: ‘Le scribe n’a pas utilis´e tout l’espace disponible pour chaque ligne. La r´epartition des lignes co¨ıncide peut-ˆetre avec la division en h´emistiches’ (TOu I, 275). 11 Mabie 2004. 12 KTU 1.10 (RS 3.362+ 5.181) ii 1-12. Abbreviations: adv. = adverb; M = modiﬁer; nom. = nominal phrase; O = object; S = subject; V = verb; w.d = word-divider; the symbols or words between < > are assumed by ellipsis. For verbal ellipsis in Ugaritic, see Miller 1999.

164

W.G.E. Watson

For convenience, the following translation can be given: 01

[Is Baal in his house?] [Is the god Hadad in]side his palace? [blank line] 03 And Baal’s lads replied: 04 ‘Baal is not in his house, 05 the god Hadad inside his palace.

02

06 07 08 09 10 11 12

His bow he seized in his hand, and his arrows in his right. Then he did set his face towards the shores of Shamak,13 ﬁlled with buﬀalo. Lift her wing, did Virgin Anat, lift her wing and turn on the wing towards the shores of Shamak, ﬁlled with buﬀalo’.

From this excerpt some provisional conclusions can be drawn: • As mentioned, the lines on the tablet are written out as lines of verse. This would seem to be how the poet intended the poem to be read and can serve as a model for modern scholars. Although elsewhere texts may have been written continuously, this was for economy only, to save making or using more clay tablets.14 It appears that in the ancient world it was important to write out a text stichometrically. • On the other hand, apart from one blank line after line 2, possibly a mistake, there is no division into couplets, tricola etc. Instead, these divisions may be indicated by the syntactical patterns that match in some of the couplets or by other means. • Although, as an average, the number of word-units / stresses / letters is fairly consistent, there is no overall consistency. In fact, a line such as tk. ah. tmk. mlat rumm, ‘towards the shores ¯ of Shamak, ﬁlled with˘wild oxen’ (col. ii line 9 = col. ii line 13

See DUL, 825 for its possible location. ‘Clay for writing tablets had to be washed out carefully because small pieces of stone and wood could easily ruin a scribe’s work. This made the tablets expensive and was an incentive to use the surface as economically as possible’ (Korpel 2005, 143). 14

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament

165

12), with ﬁve units (to use a neutral term) seems equivalent to in. b l. bbhth, ‘Baal is not in his house’ (col. i line 4), with only three units. Similarly, bn mm. bysmm. hbl. kttrt, ‘in the grace, ¯ ˘ in the beauty of the band of the Kotharat’ (col. ii line 30) seems overloaded. Surely, either bn mm or bysmm is a gloss. More probably, such long lines were tolerated. Recently, Korpel has looked at unit delimitation in the Ugaritic cultic texts and among other things has shown that the scribes were by no means consistent.15 Independently, Mabie has also examined the presence of horizontal lines in Ugaritic texts in the category of KTU 1 (i.e. mythological and religious texts).16 He concluded: . . . the Ugaritic scribes made use of various types of horizontal lines as scribal auxiliary marks to support and then clarify the communicative intent of these texts. They were used by scribes to visually structure writing, demarcate sections, clarify syntactical relationships and denote emphasis (Mabie 2004, 130). In addition, it should be mentioned that introductions to speech (or their absence) are also factors in segmenting verse. They can help determine whether the introduction in question is or is not part of the pericope that is in verse.17

2 Delimitation Criticism One of the ﬁrst scholars to include the Masoretic accents in his discussion of colometry – in this case, of Joshua chapter 24 – was William Koopmans.18 Of course, he was not the ﬁrst to consider these accents in respect of poetic divisions, but he did remind modern scholars of its signiﬁcance. Since then, Delimitation Criticism has become established as a speciﬁc area of research. In a review of Volume 4 of the Pericope series, I concluded as follows: 15

Korpel 2005. Note that the hippiatric texts, which are also numbered as KTU 1, do not really belong to this category. 17 See Watson 1983, 1990, 1992, 1994. See De Hoop 2003, 31. 18 Koopmans 1990, as Raymond de Hoop has pointed out: 2000a, 48. 16

166

W.G.E. Watson This volume and the series as a whole clearly demonstrate that the study of Hebrew poetry must now take into account the traditional divisions as transmitted by the Masoretic text and other textual traditions, as well as by the versions. Similarly, in the analysis of other ancient texts, any markers present should be respected.19

In his review of Volumes 1 and 3 of Pericope, Marvin Sweeney noted: . . . the two volumes successfully point to the recognition of an important indicator as to how biblical books were read in their respective manuscript traditions. Korpel and Oesch are correct to assert that the issue deserves sustained scholarly attention.20 Korpel has set out a series of six steps in the structural analysis of ancient texts, which need not be repeated here.21 According to Johannes de Moor, there are ﬁve principles of delimitation criticism.22 He suggests that the following must be considered: the relative age of the witnesses, the spread of testimony, the structure of the immediate and wider contexts; also, incorrect divisions present in the text need to be explained. From the studies published so far in the Pericope series, some conclusions can be drawn: • The divisions proposed by modern scholars can be bewildering.23 • The ancient text divisions should be considered, and only rejected when necessary on the basis of arguments.24 • The setumah and petuh.ah divisions were used indiscriminately in Hebrew manuscripts.25 • The data provided by some manuscripts, especially by manuscripts of the versions, are not clear-cut. 19

Watson 2006, 18. Sweeney 2005, 208 21 Korpel 2000, 25-48. 22 De Moor 2000, 158-60. 23 De Moor 2000, 154-5. 24 De Moor 2000, 154-5. 25 De Moor 2002, 100; cf. the references given 100, n. 39. 20

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament

167

• The so-called qinah-metre does not exist.26 • ‘The information we receive in our extant manuscripts [including the Qumran Scrolls] is what the latest scribe transmitted, not the original sense divisions intended by any author or compiler’.27 • The work produced by the scribes is ‘impressionistic’ only, an expression used independently by both Tov and Ulrich.28 • ‘All study of sense divisions must be viewed within the larger context of writing, manuscripts, and inscriptions in the ancient world in general’.29 In two recent articles, Raymond de Hoop30 provided his own critique of the Delimitation Criticism approach. He has taken a close look at the method used in Delimitation Criticism and has shown that whereas accents at the end of a colon are considered, accents at the beginning of a colon are not. Furthermore, he noted that diﬀerent scholars give diﬀerent values to disjunctive accents so that there is inconsistency in the Delimitation Criticism approach. He provided a more systematic approach and concluded that it is not enough to refer to a major disjunctive accent. ‘It depends entirely on the position of such ‘a major disjunctive accent’ within the whole structure of accents in the verse concerned, whether it should be seen as indicating the end of a colon or not’.31

3 Overall Evaluation of the Pericope Approach This can be set out as ﬁrst a set of negative outcomes and then as a set of positive results: • Surprisingly, there is no mention of Mark Aronoﬀ’s study in the periodical Language, with the title ‘Orthography and Linguistic Theory: The Syntactic Basis of Masoretic Hebrew 26

De Hoop 2000c; this is a special conclusion. Ulrich 2003, 301; see below. 28 Tov 2000b, 314, 339; Ulrich 2003, 304. 29 Ulrich 2003, 301. 30 De Hoop, 2000a, b. 31 De Hoop 2000b, 95 (emphasis mine). 27

168

W.G.E. Watson Punctuation’.32 In that article, which is essential reading, he concludes ‘that the accents are primary and govern the recitation of the text’. He has ‘shown that the accentual system of Tiberian Masoretic Hebrew is based on a theory of syntactic analysis’, though that was not their purpose.33

• There are no hard and fast rules about the presence of markers: sometimes they are there and sometimes not – some texts use ruled lines at regular intervals (every ten lines of text, for example). They are only a guide, an indication, and ultimately the scholar has to decide on their signiﬁcance. This applies even to Ugaritic.34 De Moor refers to it as ‘Fingerspitzengef¨ uhl’ or an instinctive feel.35 In other words, the divisions in the manuscript tradition are relatively recent and largely impressionistic. • Mistakes in ancient manuscripts were common – even the roles of petuh.ah and setumah could be interchanged.36This means that a certain amount of sifting of the data is necessary. • As yet, there are no overall conclusions for markers in ancient texts. On the positive side: • The Pericope approach has re-opened the debate about markers in manuscripts, about colometry, the diﬀerence between prose and poetry, etc.37 • It has drawn attention to all the markers in manuscripts etc., showing that ancient traditions cannot simply be ignored.38 32

Aronoﬀ 1985. Other work by previous scholars includes Slotki 1931 and LaSor 1979. 34 See now the exhaustive study by Mabie 2004. 35 De Moor 2005, 79. 36 Korpel 2005, 154 n. 81. 37 Note especially De Hoop 2005. 38 It is also worth noting that pausal forms can be signiﬁcant in determining cola, as shown by studies by Revell, Sanders, etc. and as mentioned by Aronoﬀ 1985. 33

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament

169

• The Pericope books generally have clear conclusions at the end of individual chapters as well as providing good bibliographies and indexes. • In isolated cases, discussion of manuscripts markers has led to ﬁrmer conclusions, but the evidence from the manuscripts is only part of the picture. • These studies cover a wide range of texts, from Ugaritic tablets and Northwest Semitic inscriptions to late versions of the Bible in Syriac and Greek. There are disagreements concerning Delimitation Criticism – for example, some scholars consider that the divisions ‘go back to the earliest “authoritative” copies of a literary work in Classical Hebrew’,39 others, for example, Ulrich,40 consider the scribe to have copied only the latest format. For yet other scholars, for instance, the role of minor disjunctive accents in indicating the end of a colon is not clear.41 However, such disagreements are healthy, as they will help reﬁne and hone the application of Delimitation Criticism to ancient texts and lead to more nuanced conclusions. Many of the studies published so far indicate that there is still a great deal of work to do, not only in the creation of databases in respect of manuscripts but also in the application of Delimitation Criticism to individual books of the Hebrew Bible and to other ancient texts. This can only mean that many of the conclusions reached so far are provisional. Furthermore, it means that some of the principles outlined may need to be corrected, reﬁned and augmented. In other words, we are still at the beginning of a long process of collecting the material, studying it, and drawing the appropriate conclusions. Finally, the question to be answered is: How does the Delimitation Criticism approach aﬀect our understanding of the text? In other words, what are its implications for what is traditionally termed ‘exegesis’ ? Generally speaking, in order to understand a text 39

Korpel 2000, 22. ‘The example from Isa. 34:9-10 shows that the division activity is sometimes quite late’ (Ulrich 2003, 304). 41 De Hoop 2000b, 93-4, but note Korpel 2004, 80 n. 54. 40

170

W.G.E. Watson

it is important to determine its structure at both higher and lower levels – i.e. its overall structure and the structure of its component parts (lines of verse, cola, etc.). This has also been demonstrated for Ugaritic by Mabie, as we have seen. Korpel’s own analysis of the Book of Ruth42 has thrown up the suggestion that a later editor made some changes: an expansion of a sub-canto and the omission of a strophe between Ruth 4:13 and 4:14, when the genealogy was appended to the book.43 This is the sort of positive outcome that is welcome. More speciﬁcally, Korpel has shown how structural analysis based on the manuscript traditions can help identify the speakers in chapter 8 of Canticles.44 And De Moor has given a better explanation of Mic. 2:1-13, 6 and 7:1-13, based on his analysis of structural divisions as given in the manuscripts and versions.45 Before we go on to consider one or two examples from Canticles, I would like to draw an analogy, though I may not be the ﬁrst to do so. Masoretic markings can be compared with musical notation and expression marks on music manuscripts. At one time, it was customary to go so far as to ‘improve’ the music of J.S. Bach or ‘arrange’ scores by Mendelssohn or Vivaldi. Now the trend is quite the opposite: all the markings on original scores are scrutinised and respected, and even period instruments and playing techniques are used. However, even here, one cannot just blindly follow all the indications of expression or timing. They need to be considered and evaluated in their historical context. The habits of each composer and even each manuscript have to be determined and taken into account. In addition, there must be some allowance for mistakes, either by the copyists or even by the composers themselves. The same applies to indications of accent, sentence and sense division and the like in ancient manuscripts. In a way, this analogy is not out of place since, in fact, a secondary function of the Masoretic accents was musical, as Aronoﬀ mentions.46

42

Korpel 2001. Korpel 2001, 219. 44 Korpel 2003. 45 De Moor 2000, 2002, 2005. See also Korpel & De Moor 1998. 46 Aronoﬀ 1985, 33. 43

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament

171

4 Examples from Canticles As further illustration of the signiﬁcance of correct colometry in determining poetic structure, a few examples are discussed. The ﬁrst text chosen is Cant. 1:15-17. Here there is a major punctuation sign (silluq + sof pasuq or Accent 1) at the end of v. 16, i.e. at v. 16c, yet clearly that line belongs with the following two lines to make a tricolon: 1:15a 1:15b 1:16ab 1:16c 1:17a 1:17b

y˝ti+y:[]r" h~p;y: Ë ˝N:•hi (zaqef qat.on), .μynIê/y Ë˝yI n"èy[e hp…`y: Ë ˝N:èhi (silluq + sof pasuq). μy[i+n: πaæ¢ yŸ˝dI/d hp≤¶y: Ú~˝N“hi (zaqef qat.on), .hn:ên:[}r" Wn˝c´`r“['Aπa' (silluq + sof pasuq). μyzI±r:a} WŸn˝yTe~B; t/rªqo (zaqef qat.on), .μytiâ/rB] ?Wn˝f´`yhir"¿ Wn˝feyjir" (silluq + sof pasuq).

As is evident from the renditions quoted, some commentators follow ˜ and others do not. We have to ask two questions. Which layout is correct and why is that the case? Sample translations of these verses, with the corresponding layout, are as follows:47 (he)

(she)

(he)

(she)

47

Look at you! You are beautiful my friend! Look at you! You are beautiful. Your eyes like doves. Look at you! You are beautiful, my love, what’s more, delightful, and what’s more, our bed is verdant. The beams of our house are cedars; our rafters are cypresses.48 How beautiful you are, my darling, how beautiful! Your eyes are doves. How beautiful you are, my beloved, indeed delightful! Indeed our bed is verdant. The rafters of our house are cedars our beams are cypresses.49

To assist comparison, I have used the neutral identiﬁers ’he’ and ’she’ throughout. 48 Exum 2005, 98; similarly Tremper Longman III 2001, 107. 49 Fox 1985, 104.

172 (he)

(she)

(he)

(she)

W.G.E. Watson Ah, you are beautiful my love; ah, you are beautiful. your eyes [glances] are doves. Ah, you are beautiful, my beloved, truly lovely. [May] our couch be [fresh greenery] the beams of our house [(be)] cedar, our rafters [wainscoting] [be juniper].50 You are so beautiful, My darling, You are so beautiful, Your eyes are doves. You are so beautiful, My lover; You are so pleasant, and our bed is a spreading , The beams of our house are cedars, Our rafters are junipers.51

Instead, I propose the following layout: (he)

See, you are beautiful, my friend, see, you are beautiful, your eyes like doves.

(she)

See, you are beautiful, my lover, (see your) face is handsome. The head of our bed is lush greenery, the beams52 of our house, cedars, our rafters, junipers.

Instead of ‘also’,53 here the Hebrew term πa' is taken to mean ‘front part, nose, face, etc.’ corresponding to Ugaritic ap in ap t g˙ r, ‘en¯ trance’ (literally ‘front part of the gate’) and Akkadian appu, ‘nose, tip, etc.’, a meaning proposed for Hebrew by Del Olmo Lete.54 I 50

Keel 1994, 68. The speakers are indicated in the commentary. Hess 2005, 44 (with nn. c, d, e, f). Note the unusual division into 10 lines of verse. 52 Corresponding to Akk. qurˆ u, which denotes a cut length of wood (cf. CDA, 292; CAD Q, 320; AHw, 930); see also Aram. qwrh, ‘beam (?)’ (DNWSI, 1004). The reference to Akk. qar¯ıtu, ‘granary’, in HALOT, 1091 is irrelevant. 53 See the discussion in Stoop-Van Paridon 2005, 92-3. 54 Del Olmo Lete 2003, 312. 51

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament

173

would argue that, thematically, the layout as a tricolon describing the bed is correct. It was obscured because the inappropriate meaning was given to Hebrew πa' here. If this should prove correct, then it shows that the accentuation need not always be respected. Another example from Canticles is 3:9

.ˆ/nîb;L]˝h' yx´`[}˝me hmo+løv] Ël,M≤¢˝h' /Ÿ˝l hc;[…¶ ˆ/yﬁr“Pia' (sof pasuq + silluq) ‘King Solomon made himself a canopied bed55 from the trees of the Lebanon.’ As Longman points out in his commentary,56 it is diﬃcult to know where to split the line ‘A palanquin he made for himself, King Solomon, from trees of the Lebanon’ in order to obtain two balanced lines. The accents in ˜ (see above) indicate the following division King Solomon made himself a canopied bed from the trees of the Lebanon. Instead, Pope57 opts for a three-line verse:

/Ÿ˝l hc;[…¶ ˆ/yﬁr“Pia A litter he made for himself, hmo+løv] Ël,M≤¢˝h' Did King Solomon, .ˆ/nîb;L]˝h' yx´`[}˝me From wood of Lebanon. If the word ‘Solomon’ is omitted as a gloss (as Longman mentions),58 the result is:

Ël,M≤¢˝h' < > /Ÿ˝l hc;[…¶ ˆ/yﬁr“Pia A palanquin did the king make for himself, .ˆ/nîb;L]˝h' yx´`[}˝me from the wood of Lebanon. However, it has been argued that in the construction formulae of 1 Kings (esp. 1 Kings 7:51), i.e. hmoløv] Ël,M,h' hc;[; ‘King Solomon made’, the full title is used, so that it may also be correct here.59 55 Here, of course, I am not concerned with the hapaxlegomenon ˆwyor“Pia', which is possibly a Greek loanword meaning ‘sedan-chair’ or the like, although it may even be Persian. However, Dobbs-Allsopp 2005, 67-71 concludes that it is Semitic. For discussion see also Stoop-Van Paridon 2005, 165; she translates: ‘He had a litter made for himself, the King Solomon / Out of wood from Lebanon’. 56 Longman 2001, 137. 57 Pope 1977, 412. 58 Longman 2001, 137, referring to BHS. 59 See discussion in Pope 1977, 442.

174

W.G.E. Watson

Whichever solution is adopted, there is no parallelism, not even in ˜. Perhaps it is simply a three-unit verse:60 A palanquin he made for himself did King Solomon from the wood of Lebanon Yet another example from Canticles is in the repeated refrain 2:7 3:5 5:8 8:4) where the ˜ is silent. These lines seem to be in an ‘echelon formation’:61 I entreat you, Daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the does of the ﬁeld, do not arouse and do not awaken my love until it wishes! While the masoretic accents or even the versions could indicate this pattern,62 it is not so marked in the ˜. We have to rely on parallels from other verse traditions, to provide us with the pattern. For example, it is found in Sumerian: All the countries on the stelae of the city accept your lofty me; like your lofty me, lofty is your name, like your name, bountiful is your soil. City, in heaven and upon earth your name is the greatest. Vanstiphout, who ﬁrst noticed the pattern in Sumerian verse, explains: In fact, what is happening here is that the arrangement of the subsequent element of discourse is put consistently in echelon rather than in line abreast following a line matrix.63 60

This may be an example of the three-unit verse discussed by John Hobbins. Stoop-Van Paridon 2005, 165 discusses the metrical diﬃculties but adds: ‘the ˜ can be followed without any problems’. 61 For the meaning of this refrain see Kogan 2004 and see also Watson 2006. 62 As was indicated to me by Raymond de Hoop (p.c.). 63 Vanstiphout 1993, 321; for the text cf. ibid., 320.

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament

175

This pattern, which occurs several times in Canticles, has been discussed elsewhere.64 Fokkelmann has also identiﬁed this pattern in Deut. 32:17 and has termed it a ‘telescopic chain’.65 In another respect, the tradition represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls is also of interest. Four scrolls of Canticles have been found: 4Canta , 4Cantb , 4Cantc and 6QCant. What is striking is that Cant. 4:8–6:10 has been omitted from 4Canta , making it either an ‘abbreviated text’66 or ‘a shorter edition of the book’.67 According to Flint, the material may have been omitted either because of its erotic content or because it was repetitive. Instead, 4Cantb ends at 5:1, making it shorter than the edition preserved in ˜ (which, of course, ends at 8:14). Furthermore, there are ‘unusual scribal markings’ in 4Cantb which perhaps ‘served as line-ﬁllers written in the spaces of the lines to prevent such lines from being mistaken as “open sections” ’.68

5 Conclusion To conclude, then, it is growing increasingly clear that the data from manuscripts and codices cannot be ignored. In other words, in general terms, the Delimitation Criticism approach is not only valid and justiﬁed but also indispensable. However, the data cannot simply be noted down and used uncritically. As has been noted, there may be mistakes in the manuscript tradition due to incorrect transmission or breaks in the transmission process. To make sense, the information has to be evaluated in context and sometimes comparative philology or comparison with other verse traditions forces us to override the markers handed down by tradition.

64

Watson 1995. Fokkelman 1998, 93. 66 Tov 1995, 89. 67 Flint 2005, 100-101. 68 Flint 2005, 103. 65

Bibliography Aronoﬀ 1985 – M. Aronoﬀ, ‘Orthography and Linguistic Theory: The Syntactic Basis of Masoretic Hebrew Punctuation’, Lg. 61 (1985), 28-72. Anstey 2006 – M. Anstey, ‘The Grammatical-Lexical Cline in Tiberian Hebrew’, JSSt 51 (2006), 159-84. Baasten & Van Peursen 2003 – M.F.J. Baasten & M. Th. van Peursen (eds), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Leuven 2003. Berry 2005 – D.K. Berry, review of Fokkelman 1998, Bib. 86 (2005), 560-64. Brooke 1994 – G.J. Brooke et al. (eds), Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992 (UBL, 11), M¨ unster 1994. Brug 1990 – J.F. Brug, ‘Biblical Acrostics and Their Relationship to Other Ancient Near Eastern Acrostics’, in: Hallo et al. (eds) 1990, 283-304. Chazan et al. 1999 – R. Chazan et al. (eds), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, Winona Lake 1999. Churchyard 1999 – H. Churchyard, Topics in Tiberian Hebrew Metrical Phonology and Prosodics, PhD University. of Texas 1999. Cunchillos 2004 – J.-L. Cunchillos et al., One Writing . . . Numerous Readings: Computation and Philology in the Recension of Ugaritic Texts (Publications of the Ugaritic Data Bank), Piscataway 2004. De Hoop 2000a – R. de Hoop, ‘The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of Recent Approach (Part I)’, JNSL 26/1 (2000), 47-73. De Hoop 2000b – R. de Hoop, ‘The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of Recent Approach (Part II)’, JNSL 26/2 (2000), 65-100.

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament – Bibliography

177

De Hoop 2000c – R. de Hoop, ‘Lamentations: The Qinah-Metre Questioned’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 80-104. De Hoop 2003 – R. de Hoop, ‘Genesis 49 Revisited: The Poetic Structure of Jacob’s Testament and the Ancient Versions’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2003, 1-32. De Hoop 2005 – R. de Hoop, ‘The Frame Story of the Book of Job: Prose or Verse? Job 1:1-5 as a Test Case’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2005, 40-77. Del Olmo Lete 1981 – G. del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas de Canaan segun la tradicion de Ugarit, Madrid 1981. Del Olmo Lete 2003 – ‘Nota a una traducci´on del Cantar de los Cantares’, in: V. Collado Bertomeu (ed.), Palabra, Prodigio, Poes´ıa: In memoriam P. Lu´ıs Alonso Sch¨ okel S.J. (AnBib, 151), Rome 2003, 301-16. De Moor 2000 – J.C. de Moor, ‘Micah 7:1-13: The Lament of a Disillusioned Prophet’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 149-96. De Moor 2002 – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Structure of Micah 2:1-13: The Contribution of the Ancient Witnesses’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2002, 90-120. De Moor 2005 – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Structure of Micah 6 in the Light of Ancient Delimitations’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2005, 78-113. De Moor & Watson 1993 – J.C. de Moor, W.G.E. Watson (eds), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT, 42), NeukirchenVluyn 1993. Dobbs-Allsopp 2005 – F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, ‘Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs’, in: Hagedorn 2005, 27-77. Dresher 1994 – B.E. Dresher, ‘The Prosodic Basis of the Tiberian Hebrew System of Accents’, Lg. 70 (1994), 1-52. Exum 2005 – J.C. Exum, The Song of Songs: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville KY, 2005. Flint 2005 – P.W. Flint, ‘The Book of Canticles (Song of Songs) in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in: Hagedorn 2005, 97-104.

178

W.G.E. Watson

Fokkelman 1990 – J. Fokkelman, ‘The Structure of Psalm 68’, in: Van der Woude 1990, 72-83. Fokkelman 1995 – J. Fokkelman, ‘The Song of Deborah and Barak: Its Prosodic Levels and Structure’, in: Wright et al. (eds) 1995, 595-628. Fokkelman 1998 – J. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis, Vol. 1: Ex. 15, Deut. 32, and Job 3 (SSN, 37), Assen 1998. Fokkelman 2000 – J. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis, Vol. 2: 85 Psalms and Job 4-14 (SSN, 41), Assen 2000. Fokkelman 2001 – J. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide, Louisville 2001. Fokkelman 2003 – J. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis, Vol. 3: The Remaining 65 Psalms (SSN, 43), Assen 2003. Fox 1985 – M.V. Fox, The Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, Madison WI, 1985. Hagedorn 2005 – A.C. Hagedorn (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs: Comparative Approaches to a Biblical Text (BZAW, 346), Berlin 2005. Hallo 1990 – W.W. Hallo et al., Scripture in Context III: The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature (ANETS, 8), Lewiston 1990. Hess 2005 – R.S. Hess, Song of Songs (Baker commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), Grand Rapids 2005. Horwitz 1971 – W.J. Horwitz, Graphemic Representation of Word Boundary: The Small Vertical Wedge in Ugaritic, PhD Yale 1971. Horwitz 1973 – W.J. Horwitz, ‘A Study of Ugaritic Scribal Practices and Prosody in CTA 2:4’, UF 5 (1973), 165-73. Horwitz 1974 – W.J. Horwitz, ‘Some Possible Results of Rudimentary Scribal Training’, UF 6 (1974), 75-83. Horwitz 1977 – W.J. Horwitz, ‘Our Ugaritic Mythological Texts: Copied or Dictated?’, UF 9 (1977), 123-30.

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament – Bibliography

179

Horwitz 1979 – W.J. Horwitz, ‘The Ugaritic Scribe’, UF 11 (1979), 389-94. Katsh & Nemoy 1979 – A.I. Katsh, L. Nemoy (eds), Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (1909-1979), Philadelphia 1979. Keel 1994 – The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary, tr. F.J. Gaiser, Minneapolis 1994. Kogan 2004 – L. Kogan, ‘Sleeping Deer in Mesopotamia and the Bible’, in: Babel und Bibel 1: Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament and Semitic Studies (Orientalia et Classica. Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies, Issue V), Moscow 2004, 363-6. Koopmans 1990 – W.T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOTS, 93), Sheﬃeld 1990. Korpel 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Introduction to the Series Pericope’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 1-50. Korpel 2001 – M.C.A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pericope, 2), Assen 2001. Korpel 2003 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Who is Who? The Structure of Canticles 8:1-7’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2003, 89-120. Korpel 2004 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘The Priestly Blessing Revisited (Num. 6:22-27)’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2004, 61-88. Korpel 2005 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Unit Delimitation in Ugaritic Cultic Texts and Some Babylonian and Hebrew Parallels’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2005, 141-60. Korpel & De Moor 1988 – M.C.A. Korpel & J.C. de Moor, ‘Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry’, in: Van der Meer & De Moor 1988, 1-61. Korpel & De Moor 1998 – M.C.A. Korpel & J.C. de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55 (OTS, 41), Leiden 1998. Korpel & Oesch 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel & J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000.

180

W.G.E. Watson

Korpel & Oesch 2002 – M.C.A. Korpel & J.M. Oesch (eds), Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (Pericope, 3), Assen 2002. Korpel & Oesch 2003 – M.C.A. Korpel & J.M. Oesch (eds), Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature (Pericope, 4), Assen 2003. Korpel & Oesch 2005 – M.C.A. Korpel & J.M. Oesch (eds), Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets (Pericope, 5), Assen 2005. Kottsieper 2003 – I. Kottsieper, ‘Zu graphischen Abschnittsmarkierungen in nordwestsemitischen Texten’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2003, 121-61. LaSor 1979 – W.S. LaSor, ‘An Approach to Hebrew Poetry through the Masoretic Accents’, in: Katsh & Nemoy 1979, 327-53. Longman 2001 – T. Longman III, Song of Songs (NICOT), Grand Rapids 2001. Loretz 1976 – O. Loretz, ‘Die Analyse der ugaritischen und hebr¨aischen Poesie mittels Stichometrie und Konsonantenz¨ahlung’, UF 7 (1976), 265-9. Loretz 1979 – O. Loretz, Die Psalmen, Teil II: Beitrag der UgaritTexte zum Verst¨andnis von Kolometrie und Textologie der Psalmen – Psalm 90–150 (AOAT, 207/2), Kevelaer 1979. Loretz 1986 – O. Loretz, ‘Kolometrie ugaritischer und hebr¨ aischer Poesie: Grundlagen, informationstheoretische und literaturwissenschaftliche Aspekte’, ZAW 98 (1986), 249-66. Mabie 2004 – F.J. Mabie, ‘The Syntactical and Structural Function of Horizontal Dividing Lines in the Literary and Religious Texts of the Ugaritic Corpus (KTU 1)’, UF 36 (2004), 291-312. Miller 1999 – C.L. Miller, ‘Patterns of Verbal Ellipsis in Ugaritic Poetry’, UF 31 (1999), 333-72. Nebe 1994 – G.W. Nebe, ‘Qumranica I: Zu unver¨oﬀentlichten Handschriften aus H¨ohle 4 von Qumran’, ZAW 106 (1994), 307-22. Oesch 1979 – J.M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer u ¨berlieferten Gliederung im hebr¨ aischen Text des Alten Testaments (OBO, 27), Freiburg 1979.

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament – Bibliography

181

Oesch 2000 – J.M. Oesch, ‘Skizze einer synchronen und diachronen Gliederungskritik im Rahmen der alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 197-229. Pope 1977 – M. Pope, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB, 7C), Garden City NY, 1977. Prinsloo 2006 – G.T.M. Prinsloo, ‘The Role of Space in the yrv twl[mh (Psalms 120-134)’, Bib. 86 (2006), 147-77. Rensburg 1997 – J.F.J. van Rensburg, ‘A Numerical Characterization of Poetical Lines: Statistical Theory and Young Babylonian Application’, Journal of Semitics 9 (1997), 39-47. Robertson 1994 – A.F. Robertson, Word Dividers, Spot Markers and Clause Markers in Old Assyrian, Ugaritic, and Egyptian Texts: Sources for Understanding the Use of the Red Ink Points in the Two Akkadian Literary Texts, Adapa and Ereshkigal, Found in Egypt, PhD New York 1994. Robertson 1999 – A.F. Robertson, ‘Non-Word Divider Use of the Small Vertical Wedge in Yarih and Nikkal and in an Akkadian ˘ Text Written in Alphabetic Cuneiform’, in: Chazan et al. 1999, 89-109. Scherer 2006 – A. Scherer, ‘Der Rhythmus der Schlacht: Die poetische Sprachgestalt von Jdc 5, 19-22’, ZAW 117 (2006), 529-42. Segert 1987 – S. Segert, ‘Words Spread Over Two Lines’, UF 19 (1987), 283-8. Slotki 1931 – I.W. Slotki, ‘Typographic Arrangements of Hebrew Poetry: New Light on the Solution of Metrical and Textual Difﬁculties’, ZAW 8 (1931), 211-22. Stol 1988 – M. Stol, ‘Babylonian and Biblical Acrostics’, Bib. 69 (1988), 305-23. Stoop–Van Paridon 2005 – P.W.T. Stoop–Van Paridon, The Song of Songs: A Philological Analysis of the Hebrew Book μyrIyVih' ryvi (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement, 17), Leuven 2005. Sweeney 2005 – M.A. Sweeney, Review of Korpel & Oesch 2000 and Korpel & Oesch 2003, JSSt 50 (2005), 207-9.

182

W.G.E. Watson

Tov 1995 – E. Tov, ‘Three Manuscripts (Abbreviated Texts?) of Canticles from Qumran Cave 4’, JJS 46 (1995), 88-111. Tov 2000a – E. Tov, ‘4QCanta−c ’, in: Ulrich et al. 2000, 195-219. Tov 2000b – E. Tov, ‘The Background of the Sense Divisions in the Biblical Texts’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 312-50. Tov 2003 – E. Tov, ‘The Indication of Small Sense Units (Verses) in Biblical Manuscripts’, in: Baasten & Van Peursen 2003, 473-86. Tov 2004 – E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reﬂected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (StTDJ, 54), Leiden 2004. Tropper 2000 – J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT, 273), M¨ unster 2000. Ulrich et al. 2000 – E. Ulrich et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4/XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD, 16), Oxford 2000. Ulrich 2003 – E. Ulrich, ‘Impressions and Intuition: Sense Divisions in Ancient Manuscripts of Isaiah’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2003, 279307. Van der Lugt 2005 – P. van der Lugt, Cantos and Strophes in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: with Special Reference to the First Book of the Psalter (OTS, 53), Leiden 2005. Van der Meer & De Moor 1988 – W. van der Meer & J.C. de Moor (eds), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (JSOT.S, 74), Sheﬃeld 1988. Van der Woude 1990 – A.S. van der Woude (ed.), In Quest of the Past: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism: Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988 (OTS, 26), Leiden 1990. Vanstiphout 1993 – H.L.J. Vanstiphout, ‘ “Verse Language” in Standard Sumerian Literature’, in: De Moor & Watson 1993, 305-29. Watson 1982 – W.G.E. Watson, ‘Lineation (Stichometry) in Ugaritic Verse’, UF 14 (1982), 311-2. Watson 1983 – W.G.E. Watson, ‘Introductions to Discourse in Ugaritic Narrative Verse’, AuOr 1 (1983), 253-61.

Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament – Bibliography

183

Watson 1990 – W.G.E. Watson, ‘Abrupt Speech in Ugaritic Narrative Verse’, UF 22 (1990), 415-23. Watson 1992 – W.G.E. Watson, ‘More on Preludes to Speech in Ugaritic’, UF 24 (1992), 361-6. Watson 1994 – W.G.E. Watson, ‘Introductions to Speech in Ugaritic and Hebrew’, in: Brooke et al. 1994, 383-94. Watson 1995 – W.G.E. Watson, ‘Verse Patterns in the Song of Songs’, JNSL 21 (1995), 111-22. Watson 2006 – W.G.E. Watson, Review of Korpel & Oesch 2003, JSSt 51 (2006), 180-2. Watson 2006 – W.G.E. Watson, ‘Let Snoozing Gazelles Lie’, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Br`eves et Utilitaires 2006, 74. Wright 1995 – D.P. Wright et al. (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995. Wyatt 1998 – N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues (BiSe, 53), Sheﬃeld 1998.

Special Abbreviations CDA – J. Black, A. George and J.N. Postgate (eds), A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (SANTAG, Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde, 5), Wiesbaden 2000. DLU – G. del Olmo Lete, J. Sanmart´ın, Diccionario de la lengua ugar´ıtica, 2 vols. (Aula Orientalis Supplementa, 7, 8), Barcelona 1996/ 2000. DUL – G. del Olmo Lete, J. Sanmart´ın, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (English Version Edited and Translated by W.G.E. Watson), 2 vols. (HdO, I/67), Leiden 2002; 2 2004 (= revised Engl.tr. of DLU ).

184

W.G.E. Watson

DNWSI – J. Hoftijzer & K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 2 vols. (HdO, I/21), Leiden 1995. KTU – M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, J. Sanmart´ın, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition), M¨ unster 1995. TOu I – A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques, Tome I: Mythes et L´egendes. Introduction, traduction, commentaire (LAPO, 7), Paris 1974.

Diverging Traditions Jeremiah 27–29 (˜, Í, ◊) / 34–36 (Ì) A Proposal for a New Text Edition Raymond de Hoop Pretoria – South Africa∗ /Jayapura – Indonesia

1 Introduction The Pericope group collects data on delimitation of units in ancient Biblical manuscripts. Several means of publication of these data have been considered among which a digital database was the most prominent feature. However despite enthusiastic response from scholars to the proposal, little enthusiasm was found to collaborate to the project, which may be due to the fact that electronically publishing is still not appreciated very much in the scholarly world. As a result of this lack of support to the project, the work of the Pericope group runs the risk of being scattered over some loose publications, characterised by dissimilarities in thoroughness of collecting, presentation and interpretation of data, etc. On the other hand, it might be asked whether data with regard to the delimitation of units can be separated from the context to which they belong, i.e. the text itself. Until now, however, these data are only scattered over the diﬀerent manuscripts and they hardly found their way into the critical editions of the diﬀerent traditions,1 whereas the incidental inclusion (or interpretation) of data is not presented in a consistent manner and an improvement of this situation is not to be expected in the near future.2 For that reason it ∗

Research for this paper has been conducted as a Research Fellow of the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Thanks are due to my assistent Miss Ribka Makuba (Jayapura, Indonesia), who assisted me in numerous ways during the preparatory work for this article. 1 Korpel 2000. 2 Cf. for example the discussion of the use of the Masoretic accentuation in the new Biblia Hebraica Quinta in De Hoop forthcoming-a. Next to this, reference can be made to the new Oxford Hebrew Bible in which:

186

Raymond de Hoop

seems appropriate to propose the publication of a new text edition in which the data regarding the delimitation of units is included in a consistent manner in order to provide scholars with a tool that enables them to verify the way scripture was written and read in antiquity. In this proposal I will focus the attention on the following elements: 1. The form: an electronic or a paper version? 2. The form: one text type or multiple texts? 3. Delimitation of units and textual variants; 4. Choices made in the presented edition.3

2 Electronic versus Paper Version Peter Robinson, who contributed considerably to the electronic publication of a textual critical editions, and in particular to that of the Canterbury Tales, argued in a recent article on electronic publishing (I quote from the abstract): 1. if a text-critical matter is complicated and it is considered necessary, the Masoretic accentuation is left out, and 2. if it concerns a disjunctive accent, it will be including the conjunctive accents which are dependent on it; cf. OHB-guide 2005, 4-5. Of course this has everything to do with the choice to represent the substantive readings, while reproducing accidentals of the so-called ‘copy-text’ and all problems involved with it; cf. Hendel s.a., 14-7. This approach is still based on a view that disjunctive accents are independent entities within a verse, not related to other accents than the conjunctive accents. This approach is obsolete, since they alle depend on each other and their strength is relative. If a Masoretic accent has to be removed, they all have to be removed since the internal structure of the accentuation of that verse is disturbed. 3 During the presentation there was a handout available in the correct (large) format; in this printed paper-edition only a few pages of that edition in reduced format will be included. The correct and complete version of Jeremiah 27–29 (Ì-Jeremiah 34–36) will be available at the website of the Pericope group: www.pericope.net.

Diverging Traditions: A New Text Edition

187

Despite great promise . . . digital editions have not been as successful with the general scholarly community as was expected by early digital theorists. The author attributes this faillure to two main problems: A lack of easy-to-use tools and a lack of support from major publishing houses. The result is that it currently remains far easier to make a print than electronic edition. This situation will not improve until the tools and distribution of electronic projects is such that any scholar with the disciplinary skills to make an edition in print can be assured he or she will have access to the tools and distribution necessary to make it in the electronic medium.4

This state of aﬀairs seems to be reinforced by the fact that electronic publications are still not appreciated as important publications in the scholarly ﬁeld as recently became obvious from the report of the Modern Language Association of America on Tenure and Promotion.5 In my view these two factors contributed to a large extent to the disappointing response to the request to contribute to the project. However other factors why the database did not succeed have to be considered. One important aspect may be that such a database not only has to cover data concerning the delimitation of units as the initial plan suggest, but in fact also should contain information concerning the text which was delimited by these delimiters. That would bring the project close to a concordance project, since it has to contain grammatical information or maybe more speciﬁc syntactical, like for example with the introduction to direct speech. Compare for example the following introduction to direct speech together with direct speech in Jer. 28:15 (Ì 35:15),6 which in the usual Pericope format would be presented as follows:7 4

Robinson 2005; cf. also Robinson 2004. MLAA 2006. 6 With regard to the problems with the delimitation of the introduction to direct speech (= IDS) in the versions, cf. De Hoop, 2003. 7 I refer to the Masoretic accents by means of an abbreviation of the names, departing thus from the practice, which became standard with Koopmans 1990, 177-8, to refer to the Masoretic accentuation by means of the numbers found at the tabula accentuum of BHS. Reason for this is the fact that the new BHQ no longer provides the tabula with the accents numbered, which makes this way of reference rather soon obsolete. Moreover, it seems more appropriate to refer to the names of the accents than to a possible number, which might give a wrong impression regarding grading of accents etc. For the abbreviations of the accents, see p. 208 below. 5

188

Raymond de Hoop

hy…-n“n"j} an:∞A[mæâv] aybi`N:˝h' hy:èn“n"j}Ala, aybiöN:˝h' hy:ém]r“yI rm,aYo!˝w" . rq,v…âAl[' hZ<¡˝h' μ[…à˝h;Ata, T;j]fæöb]hi hT;%a'˝w“ hw:±hy“ Ú¢˝j}l;v]Aaløê

15A 15B

[a] –8 [s] ÌABS ÍA ◊CAOT 9

Jeremiah the prophet said to Hananiah the prophet, ‘Listen, Hananiah! Yhwh did not send you, but you made this people trust a lie!

As happens more often, ˜ does not read a break directly after the IDS, but reads a part of the speech itself as part of the colon. This does not happen in the Versions, which apply the punctuation as markers of syntactical transitions.10 With regard to the proposal of a new textedition, it is important to note here that Ì has a several minusses in comparison to ˜, which remarkably are not listed in the critical apparatus of BHS :11 as is more common, the words aybiN:˝h' after the names Jeremiah and Hananiah are missing,12 whereas the admonition to listen hy…-n“n"j} an:∞A[mæâv] is absent as well in Ì. Apart from the already mentioned syntactical aspect, the fact that the text is shorter consequently inﬂuences the delimitation as well and it appears that the following delimitation is almost natural: 15A 15B 15C

Kai; ei\pen Ieremia" tw'/ Anania: oujk ajpevstalkevn se kuvrio": kai; pepoiqevnai ejpoivhsa" to;n lao;n tou'ton ejpΔ ajdivkw/:

When retroverted to Hebrew this would result in the following Hebrew text, which seems to be outbalanced somewhat:13 8

Ì has a minus here, namely hy…-n“n"j} an:∞A[mæâv] aybi`N:˝h', and has a break after the introduction to the direct speech after the name Hananiah. Í and ◊ also have a break after the introduction, after the word aybi`N:˝h', whereas Í adds here again algd. Both Í and ◊ read hy…-n“n"j} an:∞A[mæâv] with the next colon. 9 ÌÍ◊ also have a break after hw:±hy“. ÌSA , ÍA and ◊ms have a major break after this verse. 10 De Hoop 2003. 11 This happens more often with the critical apparatus of BHS ; cf. e.g. Isa. 40:3, where BHS does not list that Ì has a minus (˜ hb;r:[}B;), which is of crucial importance to understand the diﬀerences between the delimitation of this text in ˜ in contrast to Ì and the N.T. passages (Mt. 3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk. 3:4). This implies that BHS is not a reliable tool for textual criticism, nor a reliable help with delimitation criticism, because the text has always to be checked against the editions itself whether the Versions have plusses or minuses or other deviations of ˜. 12 Having a shorter text in combination with proper nouns does not solely occur in Ì, but also occurs in 4QJerd (Jer. 43:4, 5); cf. Tov 2001, 326-7. 13 The Masoretic accentuation is left out in this colon, since the system is disturbed because of the omission of a word.

Diverging Traditions: A New Text Edition hy:n“n"j}Ala, hy:m]r“yI rm,aYo˝w" hw:hy“ Új}l;v]Aalø . rq,v;Al[' hZ
189 15A* 15B* 15C*

As noted, the text is not in balance, which factually is not necessary. But if the text of were to be read in line with the way ˜ delimited the text, viz. reading not immediately a break after IDS, it would suggest the following delimitation for the retroverted text: hw:hy“ Új}l;v]Aalø hy:n“n"j}Ala, hy:m]r“yI rm,aYo˝w" . rq,v;Al[' hZ
15A* 15B*

The question is, however, which version has priority and thus whether a retroversion into Hebrew would shed light on a possible Vorlage of Ì.14 But whatever delimitation one prefers, it is obvious that a comparison of the diﬀerent traditions of delimitation only can be based on the delimitation within its context. Textual critical, syntactical and poetical considerations have to be taken into account, making such an undertaking a project, which only can be in cooperation with a large amount of specialities, asking a very long range of time. Because of the present state of aﬀairs, in my view we have to set a more modest goal. A goal, which later – whenever reached once – can be expanded and elaborated on. Since at this moment preference in the scholarly world is still for paper editions (this applies to institutions, authors, but users as well), it seems appropriate to focus on a paper edition. This does not exclude an electronic version, however, because all data are inserted in the computer and thus can easily be used for other purposes as well.15

3 One Text Type versus Multiple Traditions Over a long period the Hebrew Bible, or better: the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible governed the ﬁeld of Old Testament Studies. Even if Ì sometimes had a considerable shorter text, preference was generally given to ˜, despite those scholars who preferred (or gave priority to) the Ì-version of a book. The ﬁndings in the Judean Desert changed the situation considerably and the result is now 14

On this topic, see Tov 1999b; de Hoop forthcoming. In this sense the early presentation of NETS on the internet is a very good example of how electronic and paper publishing are complementary; cf. e.g. Pietersma & Saunders forthcoming. 15

190

Raymond de Hoop

that each tradition is (at least) given its own value / due respect.16 With regard to Jeremiah for example, despite a number of renowned scholars who disagree,17 it appears that the majority of scholars consider the traditions of Ì and some texts from Œ to reﬂect an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text.18 For this reason a presentation of one single tradition only seems not appropriate anymore. But, even if it seems obvious, we should keep in mind that the punctuation of a text is the punctuation belonging to that speciﬁc textual tradition (viz. Ì, Í) and cannot be transmitted without the risk of misinterpretation to another tradition (viz. ˜). Carefully prepared footnotes to the text cannot clarify the possible textual critical problems. Simple comparison of delimiters is impossible because of the diﬀerent languages involved, whereas the problem of the translation technique of the translator should as well be kept in mind. I refer to the text of Jer. 27:9:19 μk,%˝ymes]qoêAla,˝w“ μk,⁄˝yaeybin“Ala, W[Ÿm]v]TiAla' μT,a'˝w“· μk,+˝ytemo∞løj} l~a,˝w“ μk≤-˝ypeV;K'Ala,˝w“ μk≤`˝ynEn“[oêAla,˝w“ rmo+a˝le μ~k,˝ylea} μyrI•m]ao μhe|Arv,a} . lb≤âB; Ël,m≤àAta, Wd™b]['t' aløè

9aA 9aB 9aC 9bA 9bB

[r ] ÌABS ◊CAOT 20 21 [z ] ÌABS ÍA ◊O [a] ÌS ÍA ◊CAOT 22 [z ] –23 [s] ÌABS ÍA ◊CAOT

If this text is now compared to the text of Ì, we may note there is 16

Tov 1992, 158-63; Ulrich 1999, 31-3; Ego et al. 2005, ix. The launching of the new commentary series on the Ì by Brill, of which the ﬁrst volumes now have been published (see e.g. Auld 2005; Brayford 2007), seems an indication of this shift in attitude towards the diﬀerent traditions as well. 17 Cf. Van der Kooij 1994; Van der Kooij 1997, 192-7; Fischer 1991; Fischer 1997; Fischer 2005; Lundbom 1999; Lundbom 2005. 18 Aejmelaeus 2002; Bogaert 1981a; Bogaert 1981b; Bogaert 1991; Bogaert 1994; Bogaert 2001; Stipp 1991; Stipp 1997; Tov 1981; Tov 1991; Tov 1999b; Tov 1999c. 19 Regarding the reference to the Masoretic accents; cf. p. 187, n. 7 above. 20 ABS Ì and ÍA also have a punctuation-mark after μk,⁄˝yaeybin“Ala,, but read in this case yeudoprofhtw'n uJmw'n, resp. alg\d wkj\bnl, readings which lengthen the text and thus inﬂuence the punctuation. 21 A Í lacks a punctuation-mark here, but this may be due to the slightly different text; cf. the previous footnote. 22 ABS Ì have a high dot after μk≤`˝ynEn“[oêAla,˝w.“ 23 ÌÍ◊ suggest a shorter reading than ˜: μyrIm]ao μhe, which results in a diﬀerent delimitation of the text.

Diverging Traditions: A New Text Edition

191

more involved with the delimitation of the text. Ì not only has the words of one particular colon in ˜ shorter (v. 9bA), but the ﬁrst colon is lengthened because of the plus of yeudo- with the word profhtw'n in comparison to ˜. Furthermore, the ﬁnal colon in which this introduction is found – as read in the tradition of Ì – is considerably longer and read together with a part of the previous colon: 9aA 9aB 9aC 9bA 9bB

kai; uJmei'" mh; ajkouvete tw'n yeudoprofhtw'n uJmw'n: kai; tw'n manteuomevnwn uJmi'n: kai; tw'n ejnupniazomevnwn uJmi'n: kai; tw'n oijwnismavtwn uJmw'n: kai; tw'n farmakw'n uJmw'n tw'n legovntwn ouj mh; ejrgavshsqe tw'/ basilei' Babulw'no":

Since we are dealing here with a considerably diﬀerent text we should not compare the diﬀerent delimitations of the text, without presenting and weighing the evidence in its context. For that reason a presentation according to the usual Pericope format seems not suﬃcient as a deﬁnitive way to publish the diﬀerent delimitations of the text in diﬀerent traditions.24 Neither a representation of, for example, ˜ with clear textual critical notes, notes referring to delimiters in other traditions (and incidentally other mss as well) will do.25 With reference to a wish of Emanuel Tov, which he expressed at various occasions, I should like to propose to present the diﬀerent traditions of the text side by side as in a synopsis, creating in that way a polyglot edition of the bible.26 Such a publication would have the following advantages: 24

As stated already above in Section 1, it was not the intention of the Pericopegroup to publish the data in this way. Yet, most publications are presenting data in this way; cf. e.g. Korpel 2001; De Hoop 2005, which gradually tended to become the standard presentation of data. 25 Cf. e.g. HUB, where these incidentally can be found; yet these notes still require scholars to check the relevant edition in order to understand the diverging delimitations mentioned in the critical apparatus. 26 Cf. Tov 2006, 309-10. The new Biblia Qumranica (see Ego et al. 2005) might be somewhat more in line with what Tov envisions, namely presenting texts from the Judean Desert side by side to ˜ and Ì. Since there is a considerably diﬀerent goal for the presentation of the texts, whereas generally other traditions (Ê, Í and ◊) are taken into consideration as well in the work of the Pericope group, the proposed edition can be considered to supplement other publications. Cf. also Vattioni 1968; Wagner 2003.

192

Raymond de Hoop

1. Regarding one of the goals of the Pericope group, namely making the results of the collection of data with regard to unit delimitation available to the scholarly community,27 the delimiters found in the extant manuscripts can be indicated at the appropriate position within the text it is found and thus can be compared ad loc. 2. It would oﬀer a textual-critical tool, which enables scholars to compare the text at one glance in its context. This in contrast to the critical editions of ˜, which only are able to oﬀer some variants readings in the apparatus, or omit them (cf. the example of Jer. 28:15 above). 3. In line with the previous two, plusses and minuses, or diﬀerences in order of the text, are obvious now in the text and can be studied ad loc. Regarding the delimitations of units the diﬀerences of delimitation can directly be compared in its context and might help to prevent users to draw the wrong conclusions.

4 The Proposed Edition The envisaged edition has to meet some standards and has to be consistent in such a way that it provides the same sort of data in the same way throughout the whole text of the Hebrew Bible. For that reason some matters have to be considered before the project can be started. Even though the previous section ended up with some advantages of the proposed edition, these are simultaneously the challenges for the editors. One of these challenging aspects will be the diﬀerences between the diﬀerent traditions with regard to the order of the text. It might be obvious that such diﬀerences will inﬂuence the delimitation as well and thus are of importance to the proposed edition. Since the diﬀerences in length between the diﬀerent versions – especially when we are dealing with really pluses and minuses but also when the target language requires a longer or shorter representation of the source text – inﬂuence the delimitation, a text edition should pay due attention to these diﬀerences. Finally, 27

Korpel 2000, 49-50.

Diverging Traditions: A New Text Edition

193

when speaking of length and order, this also has to do with the questions of the canon: which order of the books (Hebrew or Greek bible) is followed and which books are to be included in such an edition (canonical only or deutero-canonical / apocrypha as well)? These questions have to be considered and in the next paragraphs we will discuss them brieﬂy.

4.1

The Text Order

One of the striking diﬀerences between the diﬀerent traditions, which also aﬀects the proposed edition, is the order of the text. We choose Jeremiah 27–29 to present as a sample text together with this proposal, but which are numbered diﬀerently in Ì, namely Jeremiah 34–36 because – as is well known – the order of the chapters in ÌJeremiah are ordered diﬀerently after Jer. 25:13 than in ˜, Í and ◊. Despite the fact that we want to do justice to every tradition, we do have to make a choice here, because presenting the diﬀerent traditions side by side implies we have to ignore the ordering of the text in one or more tradition(s). It seems quite obvious, but it still is a decision to take whether we follow the order of one (or more) traditions and ignore or at least don’t follow the order of another tradition. The order of chapters in the book of Jeremiah is such a problem for the proposed edition. Even if the chapters are generally grouped in large blocks of text (but not always, cf. the oracles against the nations), apparently it still challenges the editors how to arrange the text in a correct manner. The ordering might reﬂect a diﬀerent literary history of the text and in this sense the diﬀerence between 27–29 and 34–36 side by side already gives a clear signal to the users that some diﬃculties are to be found beneath the surface. We would suggest to follow the order of ˜, Í and ◊, since this ordering and numbering reﬂects also most of the numbering in scholarly literature. It is expected this suggestion will not raise much criticism even though the order of chapters in Ì might be given prevalence over the order found in ˜ etc.28 In line with this decision is the somewhat more far-reaching decision has to be made concerning the ordering of verses. This decision 28 Cf. e.g. Lundbom 1992, 707-8; Lundbom 1999, 59; yet others argue against the order as found in Ì, cf. Fischer 1991; Rof´e 1989.

194

Raymond de Hoop

has not to be made in the sample text of this proposal (Jeremiah 27–29), but still has to be considered. In Jer. 9:22–10:18 for example, the verses are ordered diﬀerently in Ì (and Œ)29 than in ˜, reﬂecting a diﬀerent account. In case we decide to follow ˜, Í and ◊ again we do make a textual critical decision, since it is concerns the testimony of one or two witnesses which is ignored over against the other witnesses. However, we opt to publish a diplomatic and not an eclectic edition, we should follow here also one version, which governs the presentation of the text (on this, see also below). For that reason it seems only appropriate in such cases to add in such an edition an appendix in which the text is order according to a diﬀerent tradition (in this case Ì) can be presented. In the main text a reference can be made to the appendices, where e.g. Jer. 9:22–10:18 is printed according to the order of Ì, with ˜ following this order. It seems to be obvious that the order and numbering of one tradition has to be followed and it seems appropriate to follow ˜ and its ordering of the text. A rather small example, which involves only a diﬀerent delimitation of a verse and thus also involves the numbering, can be found in Jer. 28:11-12. After the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah, ˜ ends with .wKøêr“d"l] aybi`N:h' hy…àm]r“yI Ël,YEüw," ‘and Jeremiah the prophet went his way’, which is followed by a petuh.ah. If compared to ˜, it is obvious that ◊ reads the phrase ‘et abiit Hieremias prophetes in viam suam’ as the beginning of V.12, which seems to suggest it does not belong to the preceding text as a closure of the scene there, but in fact seems to open a new scene in verse 12: ‘et factum est verbum Domini as Hieremiam. But, even though the numbering diﬀers and thus seems to indicate some sort of a break before the phrase ‘and Jeremiah the prophet went his way’, in a number of the extant mss of ◊ a marker for a major break is found after this phrase, comparable to the petuh.ah in ˜. The ending of the ﬁrst part of chapter 28 is according to ˜ the clause ‘and Jeremiah the prophet went his way’. It occurs like an anticlimax, Jeremiah is not responding to the assault of Hananya, but he goes his way, which almost sounds that he departs ‘like a dog beaten by a stick’. On the other hand, ◊ closes the scene with 29

The order of Ì seems to be conﬁrmed in 4QJerb , cf. Tov 1992a, 531-7; Tov 1992b (= 2001), 319-27; see also Bogaert 1981b. Though others doubt whether this is correct; cf. Fischer 1997; Fischer 2005, 40-1.

Diverging Traditions: A New Text Edition

195

Hananiah’s action just like that. However when Jeremiah afterwards goes his way, the word of Yhwh comes to him. In ˜ there is a break after Jeremiah’s leaving, suggesting ‘going his way’ is a response to Hananiah’s action. It depicts Jeremiah as empty handed and when this has happened, the word of Yhwh comes to Jeremiah. The petuh.ah thus marks a dramatic transition in the narrated events, and ˜ seems to depict Jeremiah in this sense more human, a prophet who is not so strong; in contrast it appears ◊ describes the scene more heroic. In the sample edition we generally mark each verse only once in the margin with its corresponding number. With regard to this diﬀerence we choose to represent this diﬀerence in delimitation by means of the end of verse and by means of the major break by indicating it in the verse numbering of ◊: 11

12a 12b

et ait Ananias in conspectu omnis populi dicens haec dicit Dominus sic confringam iugum Nabuchodonosor regis Babylonis post duos annos dierum de collo omnium gentium et abiit Hieremias prophetes in viam suam ∂ et factum est verbum Domini ad Hieremiam postquam confregit Ananias propheta catenam de collo Hieremiae prophetae dicens

In contrast, the text of ˜ (the end of v. 11 together with v. 12) is numbered with the corresponding phrases only where relevant: 11

12

rmo%a˝le μ[;⁄˝h;Alk; ynE!y[e˝l] h*y:n“n"j} rm,aYo§˝w" h#w:hy“ rmæ¢a; hJKo lb,%B;AËl,m≤â rXæ¢an
196

4.2

Raymond de Hoop

Pluses and Minuses

A next problem to face is caused by the diﬀerences between the diﬀerent witnesses of the text, ranging from plusses or minuses, different texts, to diﬀerent interpretation only. Since the primary goal of this edition should not be to be a critical edition of the text it has to be asked how much attention should be given to textual variants. In fact scholars will be able to trace these diﬀerences themselves in case there are. If there are relevant diﬀerences with other traditions, e.g. Œ, Ê, a, these can be indicated in the apparatus. Diﬀerences in interpretation can cause a diﬀerent delimitation of the text and vice versa. This implies that the diﬀerences between traditions are of importance to our edition. Since every indication is also an interpretation, the problem will be what is to be indicated and what is not? What can be left over to the judgment of scholars, who are able to discern the diﬀerences themselves, and what is the task of the editors. Having an additional suﬃx or the diﬀerent rendering of a suﬃx in Ì for example, does it need a marker in the text (cf. 27:3; 27:11 [Ì 34:2, 5])? On the other hand the plusses or minuses are quite obvious but are of importance to the delimitation of the text and for that reason should clearly be indicated. Or when the Greek idiom enables a much shorter rendering possible, like for instance in Jer. 27:9 (34:7), which was discussed already above. ˜ reads in v. 9bA rmo+a˝le μ~k,˝ylea} μyrI•m]ao μhe|Arv,a}, while Ì (but cf. Í and ◊) reads tw'n legovntwn, representing in that way a much shorter Hebrew text which can be reconstructed as μyrIm]ao μhe.30 The critical apparatus of BHS seems to suggest there is no relevant diﬀerence between ˜ on one hand, and Ì, Í and ◊ on the other hand, since there is no reference to it.31 A short introduction to direct speech (IDS) generally is delimited diﬀerently, although not always.32 In each case, the diﬀerence in length is considerable and might cause a rather diﬀerent delimitation of the text and therefore a reference to the diﬀerences seems to be justiﬁed. This brings us to the next point of our discussion, decisions which have been made regarding the present sample edition of the envisioned new synoptic text edition. 30

Tov 1999b, 319, who suggests as reconstructed text μyrma μh rça, but rça is not absolutely required here. 31 Contrast in this respect HUB. 32 De Hoop 2003.

Diverging Traditions: A New Text Edition

4.3

197

A ‘Normative’ Text: Yes or No?

One of the main reasons to publish a synoptic edition is to do as much justice to each tradition as possible. In that sense the question of a ‘normative’ text seems to be out of order, because each tradition is to be valued equally. Yet the question for a normative text is not a question for the evaluation of the diﬀerent traditions, but it is only a question whether one tradition should have the ‘lead’ in the edition or not. To put it simple: should we follow one tradition regarding the order of books, chapters or verses or we not. The answer might be obvious, we have to. Not following the order of one speciﬁc tradition would create a complete chaos of information, which would even be worse than having only the four traditions separately.33 If choosing for one tradition to take the lead, which tradition should we choose? Though ˜ might be a good candidate, it is not as obvious as we might think, because it simultaneously implies a decision not only regarding the order of the books of canon but it might imply a decision on the canon itself as well. If we are to follow ˜ as taking the lead, does it imply as well that we only handle the books found in ˜ or are we to include other books found in Ì as well? The book of Jesus Sirach was partly preserved in Hebrew, it was not in the canon of ˜ and it would be interesting to include these books as well,34 or at least not to exclude them before. In this sense ˜ as a ‘normative’ text does not exclude other traditions, but the text is only considered as primus inter pares. Because scholarship of the Hebrew Bible is based so strongly on ˜ regarding the canon, as well as references to chapters and verses it seems obvious to me to take in such a synoptic tradition ˜ as the basis of reference.

5 The Sample Edition Regarding the sample edition some choices were made, which might be relevant to know to the readers. As stated before, in this edition I opted for a diplomatic presentation of the data. That is to 33 Cf. only the diﬀerent sequence of verses in Jer. 9:22–10:18, which – if only put side by side without arranging the corresponding text on one line – would be quite confusing, because next to the diﬀerent order, the shorter text of Ì also would create a chaotic edition. 34 Cf. already Jenner & Van Peursen 2002.

198

Raymond de Hoop

say, I followed for the Hebrew text the text of ˜L , following in this line the editors of BHS and BHQ. The information from the other manuscript-traditions, such as ˜A is included in the apparatus. Similar with Ì, we choose to use ÌS as the source tekst because it seems to be one of the best manuscripts, whereas other manuscripts (at this moment ÌAB are referred to in the apparatus. In this sample edition I was forced to use ÍA as witness for the text of the Peshit.ta, even though it has a questionable position among the mss, while the quality of this manuscript regarding the delimitation might be questioned.35 Pragmatic reasons only forced us to stick to this manuscript since it was available at the internet and there was during the preparation of this sample edition and paper no possibility to visit the Peshit.ta Institute at Leiden. The electronic text applied in this edition was kindly made available by the Peshit.ta Institute, which made it possible for me to be aware of some apparent variant readings in Í-mss, which is reﬂected in the critical apparatus, though without knowing at this moment the sources of the variant readings.36 In order to provide reliable information concerning the delimitation in Í other manuscripts have to be collated of course before an oﬃcial edition can be published. More or less similar to Í, we choose at this moment to follow the text of ◊ as published in Biblia Sacra 1972, without making a choice between any of the manuscripts, further research and discussion will be necessary before a decision can be made which manuscript of ◊ will be followed. Diﬀerences between the Versions which are considered to be of some importance to the delimitation of the text are indicated in the main text by means of underlining. The now following pages contain six pages from the sample edition in reduced format, the aimed format will be at an A4-format or the like. A copy of this sample edition in the original format is now available for download on the website of the Pericope group. This ﬁle will contain the chapters 27–29 of the book of Jeremiah and is considerably longer and undoubtedly more legible than the printed pages.

35

Cf. Jenner 1993, 255-9 (I owe this reference to Dr. W.Th. van Peursen, Leiden), Jenner & Van Peursen 2002. 36 Cf. e.g. Jer. 27:4.

Sample Polyglot Edition Jeremiah 27:1–28:3 (˜, Í, ◊) / 34:1–35:3 (Ì)

200

Jeremiah 27 (˜)/34 (Ì)

Jeremiah 27 (Í/◊)

201

202

Jeremiah 27 (˜)/34 (Ì)

Jeremiah 27 (Í/◊)

203

204

Jeremiah 27 (˜)/34 (Ì)

Jeremiah 27 (Í/◊)

205

Sigla and Abbreviations (in sample edition)

˜

Masoretic text Aleppo Codex, after Goshen-Gottstein (ed.) 1976 Codex Leningradensis, after Freedman (ed) 1998 Codex Petropolitanus, after Strack (ed) 18761 editio Bombergiana, Jacob ben Chayim 1524-15252 Qe re Pausal form Contextual form

A L P

ı q

Pl Cl

Septuagint Codex Alexandrinus, after Kenyon 1915. Codex Vaticanus, after Vercellone 1871 and Vatican 1905. Codex Sinaiticus, after Lake 1922.

Ì A B S

Í

Peshit.ta 7a1 = Milan, Ambrosian Library, ms B.21 Inf., after Ceriani 1876.

A

◊ C A O T

Vulgate, the data are based on Biblia Sacra 1972. Cavensis, Abb. 1 (14), paulo post 850. (Amiatinus) Florentinus, Laurent., ca. 700. Aurelianensis, Bibl. Civit. 17 (14), ca. 800. Parisinus Nov. Acq. lat. 1586, ca. 780

Ê

Targum

abbr abs

abbreviation absent: manuscript damaged, lacking the relevant passage alternative (an alternative because of the layout) illegible

alt ill 1 2

For the present edition information was gathered from Lundbom 2004. For the present edition information was gathered from Penkower 1998.

Diverging Traditions; Sigla and Abbreviations Ms(s) pc nonn mlt prev var § < + > ≈ = & ∧

(?) (!)

207

(one) manuscript(s) pauci (< 10 mss) nonnulli (11-20 mss) multi (> 20 mss) previous variants as indicated in the apparatus a section-marker in margin by means of a small line, cross or the like small separator (in ◊) plus, added, (in) addition to is lacking almost similar to, most likely corresponds to not according to, not found in and, with, also with read together, whereas other traditions read a pause read with pause, whereas other traditions read together (extra) white space between words (probably) indicating a pause reading (punctuation, characters) uncertain sic

208

Raymond de Hoop

Tabula Accentuum 3 Twenty-one Books a atnah. ¯ az azlˆ a d dargˆ a g gereˇs gl galgal gm gerˇsayim lg le¯garmeh m mˆ unah. e mh m huppak ¯ mk mˆerekˆ a ke ¯ pu ˆlˆ a ¯ e mr mˆer kˆ a ¯ my mˆ aye lˆ a p paˇs.tˆ a pg pazer gadˆ ol ¯ pz pazer r re bia‘ ¯ s sillˆ uq sg se¯golta sl ˇsalˇselet t ph.ˆ a .ti¯ tl te lˆıˇsˆ a ge dˆ olˆ a ¯ e e tq t lˆıˇsˆ a q .tannˆ a tv te bir ¯ y ye tˆıb ¯¯ z zaqe¯ p qat.an zg zaqe¯ p gadˆ ol ¯ zr zarqˆ a

3

a al az dh gl il m mh ml mr oy pz r rg rq rm s sg sq sn st tr

Three Books atnah. ¯ azlˆ a le¯garmeh azlˆ a e d h.i galgal ’illˆ uy mˆ unah. me huppak ¯ me huppak le¯garmeh ¯ mˆere kˆ a ¯e ‘ˆ olˆe w yˆ ored ¯ pazer re bia‘ ¯ re bia‘ gadˆ ol ¯ ¯ re bia‘ qat.an ¯ re bia‘ mu¯graˇs ¯ sillˆ uq ˇsalˇselet ge dˆ olˆ a ¯ e ˇsalˇselet q .tannˆ a s.innˆ or s.innˆ orˆıt ¯ a .tarh.ˆ

This table is an adaptation of the table of abbreviations of the accents, which is provided with the provisional list of pausal forms by J. Revell on the Pericope website, and of which a thoroughly revised and updated version will be published in Revell forthcoming; the transcription of the names of the accents is according to the transcription in BHS and BHQ.

Bibliography Aejmelaeus 2002 – A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. xxv 1-14 in the Book of Jeremiah’, VT 52 (2002) 459-82. Auld 2005 – A.G. Auld, Joshua: Jesus Son of Nau¯e in Codex Vaticanus (SeptCS), Leiden 2005. Biblia Sacra 1972 – Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem ad codicum ﬁdem iussu Pauli PP. VI, Tom. 14: Liber Hieremiae, Lamentationes et Baruch, Romae 1972. Bogaert 1981a – P.-M. Bogaert, ‘De Baruch `a J´er´emie: Les deux r´edactions conserv´ees du livre de J´er´emie’, in Bogaert (ed) 1981, 168-173. Bogaert 1981b – P.-M. Bogaert, ‘Les m´ecanismes r´edactionnels en J´er 10, 1-16 (LXX et TM) et la signiﬁcation des suppl´ements’, in Bogaert (ed) 1981, 222-38. Bogaert 1991 – P.-M. Bogaert, ‘Urtext, texte court et relecture: J´er´emie xxxiii 14-26 TM et ses pr´eparations’, in: Emerton (ed) 1991, 236-47. Bogaert 1994 – P.-M. Bogaert, ‘Le Livre de J´er´emie en Perspective: Les Deux R´edactions Antiques Selon Les Travaux en Cours’, RB 101 (1994) 363-406. Bogaert 2001 – P.-M. Bogaert, ‘J´er´emie 17,1-4 TM, oracle contre ou sur Juda propre au texte long, annonc´e en 11,7–8.13 TM et en 15,12-14 TM’, in: Y. Goldman, C. Uehlinger (eds), La double transmission du texte biblique: Etudes d’histoire du texte oﬀertes en hommage ´ a Adrian Schenker (OBO, 179), G¨ottingen 2001, 59-74. Bogaert (ed) 1981 – P.-M. Bogaert (ed), Le Livre de J´er´emie: Le Proph`ete et Son Milieu Les Oracles et Leur Transmission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981. Brayford 2007 – S. Brayford, Genesis (SeptCS), Leiden 2007. Ceriani 1876 – A.M. Ceriani, Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex Codice Ambrosciano Sec. Fere VI Photolithographice Edita, T. 1-2, Mediolani 1876-1883.

210

Raymond de Hoop

Collins 2007 – M. Collins, ‘Tenure Survey and Report,’ SBL Forum 5:1 (2007). De Hoop 2003 – R. de Hoop, ‘ “Trichotomy” in Masoretic Accentuation in Comparison with the Delimitation of Units in the Versiones: With Special Attention to the Introduction to Direct Speech’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature (Pericope, 4), Assen 2003, 33-60. De Hoop 2005 – R. de Hoop, “The Frame Story of the Book of Job: Prose or Verse? Job 1:1-5 as a Test-Case”, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds.), Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets (Pericope, 5), Assen 2005, 40-77. De Hoop forthcoming-a – R. de Hoop, ‘The Qinah and the Quinta: The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accentuation in the BHQ’. De Hoop forthcoming-b – R. de Hoop, ‘Jeremiah 27–29: Textual, Literary, and Delimitation Criticism’, in: R. de Hoop et al. (eds), The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis (Pericope, 7), Leiden forthcoming. Ego et al. 2005 – B. Ego et al., Minor Prophets (BibQ, 3b), Leiden 2005. Emerton (ed) 1991 – J.A. Emerton (ed), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991. Fischer 1991 – G. Fischer, “Jer 25 und die Fremdv¨olkerspr¨ uche: Unterschiede zwischen hebr¨aischem und griechischem Text”, Bib. 72 (1991) 474-99. Fischer 1997 – G. Fischer, “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches”, Bib. 78 (1997) 305-328. Fischer 2005 – G. Fischer, Jeremia 1-25 u ¨bersetzt und ausgelegt (HThK.AT), Freiburg 2005. Freedman 1998 – D.N. Freedman (ed), The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition, Grand Rapids (MI), Leiden 1998. Goshen-Gottstein 1976 – M.H. Goshen-Gottstein (ed), The Aleppo Codex, Jerusalem 1976.

Diverging Traditions – Bibliography

211

Hendel s.a. – R. Hendel, ‘The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition’ (published at: http://ohb.berkeley.edu/ OHB%20article.pdf) Jenner 1993 – K.D. Jenner, ‘A Review of the Methods by which Syriac Biblical and Related Manuscripts Have Been Described and Analysed: Some Preliminary Remarks’, Aram 5 [Fs Brock] (1993), 255266. Jenner & Van Peursen 2002 – K.D. Jenner, W.Th. van Peursen, ‘Unit Delimitation in the Text of Ben Sira’, in M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds.), Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (Pericope, 3), Leiden 2002, 144-201. Kenyon 1915 – F.G. Kenyon, The Codex Alexandrinus (Royal MS. ID v-viii) in Reduced Photographic Facsimile: Old Testament, part III: Hosea–Judith, London 1915. Koopmans 1990 – W.Th. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOT.SS, 93), Sheﬃeld 1990. Korpel 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Introduction to the Series Pericope’, in M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000, 1-50. Korpel 2001 – M.C.A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pericope, 2), Assen 2001. Lake 1922 – H. & K. Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus et Friderico-Augustanus Lipsiensis: The Old Testament Preserved in the Public Library of Petrograd, and in the Library of the Society of Ancient Literature in Petrograd, and in the Library of the University of Leipzig, Now Reproduced in Facsimile from Photographs, Oxford 1922. Lundbom 1992 – J.R. Lundbom, ‘Jeremia, Book of’, ABD, vol. 3, 706-21. Lundbom 1999 – J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 21A), New York 1999. Lundbom 2004 – J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 21C), New York 2004.

212

Raymond de Hoop

Lundbom 2005 – J.R. Lundbom, ‘Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah’, Hebrew Studies 66 (2005) 301-20. MLA 2006 – MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion, 2006 (published at: http://www.mla.org/tenure promotion). OHB-guide 2005 – The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Guide for Editors (published at: http://ohb.berkeley.edu/Guide%20for%20Editors.pdf). Penkower 1998 – J. S. Penkower, ‘The Chapter Divisions in the 1525 Rabbinic Bible’, VT 48 (1998) 350-74. Penkower 2000 – J. S. Penkower, ‘Verse Divisions in the Hebrew Bible’, VT 50 (2000) 378-93. Pietersma & Saunders (forthcoming) – A. Pietersma, M. Saunders, Ieremias: A Provisional Translation (NETS), forthcoming (a provisional edition is published on the internet: http://ccat.sas.upenn. edu/nets/edition/). Revell forthcoming – E.J. Revell, ‘Introduction to the Pausal Forms in the Hebrew Bible’, in R. de Hoop, P. Sanders (eds), Have a Break: Masoretic Traditions of Pauses in the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Pericope, –), Leiden forthcoming. Robinson 2004 – P. Robinson, ‘Where We Are with Electronic Scholarly Editions, and Where We Want to Be’, Jahrbuch f¨ ur Computerphilologie Online 3 (2004), 123-43 (= http://computerphilo logie.uni-muenchen.de/jg03/robinson.html) Robinson 2005 – P. Robinson, ‘Current Issues in Making Digital Editions of Medieval Texts – or, Do Electronic Scholarly Editions Have a Future?’, Digital Medievalist 1.1 (2005; = http://www. digitalmedievalist.org/article.cfm?RecID=6) Rof´e 1989 – A. Rof´e, ‘The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah’, ZAW 101 (1989) 390-98. ¨ Stipp 1991 – H.-J. Stipp, Oﬀene Fragen zur Ubersetzungskritik des Antiken Griechischen Jeremiabuches’, JNSL 17 (1991) 117-28. Stipp 1997 – H.-J. Stipp, ‘Linguistic Peculiarities of the Masoretic Edition of the Book of Jeremiah: An Updated Index’, JNSL 23/2 (1997) 181-202.

Diverging Traditions – Bibliography

213

Strack 1876 – H. Strack, Prophetarum posteriorum Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, Petersburg, Leipzig, 1876. Tov 1981 – E. Tov, ‘Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah’, in Bogaert (red) 1981, 145-67. Tov 1992a – E. Tov, ‘Three Fragments of Jeremiah from Qumran Cave 4’, RevQ 15 (1992) 531-41. Tov 1991 – E. Tov, ‘The Original Shape of the Biblical Text’, in Emerton (ed) 1991, 345-59. Tov 1992b – E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Assen, Minneapolis (MN) 1992; 2 2001. Tov 1999a – E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (SVT, 72), Leiden 1999. Tov 1999b – E. Tov, ‘Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34)’, in: Tov 1999a, 315–32 (repr. from ZAW 91 [1979] 73-93). Tov 1999c – E. Tov, ‘The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History’, in: Tov 1999a, 363–84 (repr. from J.H. Tigay [ed], Emperical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia PA, 1985, 97-130). Tov 2006 – E. Tov, ‘Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis’, in: F. Garc´ıa Mart´ınez et al. (eds), From 4QMMT to ´ Resurrection: M´elanges qumraniens en hommage ` a Emile Puech (STDJ, 61), Leiden 2006, 281-312. Ulrich 1999 – E. Ulrich, ‘The Scrolls and the Study of the Hebrew Bible’, in: R.A. Kugler, E. M. Schuller (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (SBL.EJL, 15) Atlanta GA, 1999, 31-41. Van der Kooij 1994 – A. van der Kooij, Jeremiah 27:5-15: How Do MT and LXX Relate to Each Other?’, JNSL 20/1 (1994) 59-78. Van der Kooij 1997 – A. van der Kooij, “Zum Verh¨altnis von Tex¨ tkritik und Literarkritik: Uberlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele,” in: J.A. Emerton (ed), Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 185-202.

214

Raymond de Hoop

Vatican 1905 – Bibliorum Sanctorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus 1209 (Cod. B) denuo phototypice expressus, (Codices e Vaticanis Selecti Phototypice Expressus, IV), pars prima: Testamentum Vetus, Mediolani 1905. Vattioni 1968 – F. Vattioni, Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e seriaca (Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica – Testi, 1), Napoli 1968. Vercellone 1871 – Bibliorum sacrorum Graecus: codex Vaticanus auspice Pio IX / Pontiﬁce Maximo collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabitae et Josephi Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus; Carolum Vercellona excepit Caietanus Sergio Sodalis Barnabites, Romae 1871. Wagner 2003 – C.J. Wagner, Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse: Griechisch – Lateinisch – Syrisch – Hebr¨ aisch – Aram¨ aisch (AAWG.PH, III.258; MSU, 28), G¨ottingen 2003.

Abbreviations All abbreviations of series, handbooks and journals in this volume are according to: S.M. Schwertner, Internationales Abk¨ urzungsverzeichnis f¨ ur Theologie und adie: Grenzgebiete, Berlin 2 1992 (= S.M. Schwertner, Theologische Realenzyklop¨ Abk¨ urzungsverzeichnis, Berlin/New York 2 1994). In addition the following abbreviations were used.

BHQ BibQ HThK.AT KTU

ManSC MPER NS

NETS PapyFlor SeptCS

Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart) Biblia Qumranica (Leiden) Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, J. Sanmart´ın, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition), Neukirchen 1995 Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection ¨ Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer; Wien) New English Translation of the Septuagint Papyrologica Florentina (Firenze) Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden)

Index of Authors Abusch, T. 32 Ackermann, A. 70ﬀ., 76, 90 Aejmelaeus, A. 190, 209 Aland, K. 47f., 52, 59 Alcuin 109, 142, 144, 147f. Allony, N. 4, 29, 119ﬀ., 134 Alonso Sch¨ okel, L. 177 Amerbach, J. 157 Anstey, M. 176 Aquila 95 Aronoﬀ, M. 167ﬀ., 170, 176 Attali, A. 4 Augustine 92, 158f. Auld, A.G. 190, 209 Baber, H.H. 114, 134 Bach, J.S. 170 Bacon, R. 146f. Baer, S. 5, 29 Baillet, M. 100f., 134 Barth´elemy, D. 99f., 134, 141-145, 158161 Bataillon, L.-J. 156, 160 Beck, A.B. 126 Becking, B.E.J.H. 31 Beit-Arieh: see Bet-Aryeh Ben Chayim, Y. 206 Ben-Zvi, I. 122f., 134 Berger, S. 141, 150 Berlin, A. 99, 134 Berry, D.K. 176 Bet-Aryeh, M. 4, 29 Black, J. 183 Black, M. 59 Blank, S.H. 4, 29 Bogaert, P.-M. 190, 194, 209 Bosham, H. of 109 Brayford, S. 190, 209 Breuer, M. 61, 64, 71, 79, 90 Brogan, T.V.F. 92, 134 Brooke, G.J. 176, 183 Brown, D. 107, 134 Brug, J.F. 162, 176 Cantor, P. 149

Caquot, A. 184 Cavallo, G. 37 Ceriani, A.M. 96, 206, 209 Chazan, R. 176 Chiesa, B. 5, 24f., 29 Chrysostomus 45 Churchyard, H. 176 Cohen, A. 98, 134 Cohen, M. 5, 29 Cohen-Mushlin, A. 129, 137 Collado Bertomeu, V. 177 Collins, M. 210 Colwell, E.C. 44, 59 Comestor, P. 148 Cour¸con, R. de 149, 150 Cowley, A.E. 130f., 138 Cunchillos, J.-L. 176 Cyprian 92 Cyril of Alexandria 45 Dahan, G. 147, 160 De Boer, P.A.H. 96, 134 De Bruin, W.M. 111, 135 De Hoop, R. 62, 65f., 90, 165, 167ﬀ., 174, 176f., 185-214 De Lagarde, P. 109 Delcor, M. 32 Del Olmo Lete, G. 163, 172, 177, 183 De Moor, J.C. 1-34, 67, 90, 166, 168, 170, 177, 179, 182 Deniﬂe, H. 146, 158 Denzinger, H. 156, 160 D’Esneval, A. 141, 147, 149, 160 De Troyer, K. 35-43 De Vaux, R. 134 Dietrich, M. 6, 29, 30, 184 D´ıez Macho, A. 4f., 29f., 95, 117, 119122, 131, 134f. Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W. 173, 177 Dotan, A. 17, 25, 27, 30f., 126, 135 Dresher, B.E. 61, 79, 90, 177 Ego, B. 190, 210 Eisenberg, A. 123, 135 Emerton, J.A. 210

218

Index of Authors

Epiphanius 45 Erasmus 109 ´ Etienne, R. 141 Exum, J.C. 171, 177 Fern´ andez Marcos, N. 95, 135 Finegan, J. 46, 59 Fischer, G. 190, 193f., 210 Flint, P.W. 99, 101f., 103, 110, 135f., 175, 177 Fokkelman, J.P. 41, 43, 70, 175f., 178 Fox, M.V. 171, 178 Fraenkel, D. 36 Freedman, D.N. 126, 206, 210 Froelich, K. 161 Garc´ıa Mart´ınez, F.G. 96, 103, 136 Gardthausen, V. 46, 59 George, A. 183 Gibson, M.T.. 161 Ginsburg, C.D. 5, 7, 16, 22, 30 Gisser, I. 109 Goldman, Y.A.P. 25 Goshen-Gottstein, M. 122f., 136, 206, 210 Gregorius, G. 109 Gregorius, J. 109 Gy, P.-M. 160

Josephus 95 Jo¨ uon, P. 79, 90 Kahle, P. 4-6, 30f., 94, 117ﬀ., 123, 136 Kasher, R. 16-18, 31 Kasser, R. 112, 136 Katsh, A.I. 179 Keel, O. 172 Kenyon, F.G. 46, 59, 105, 111, 136, 206, 211 Kittel, R. 146 Knyghton, H. of 150 Kogan, L. 174, 179 Kogut, S. 64f., 79, 90 Koopmans, W.T. 165, 179, 187, 211 Korpel, M.C.A. 1-34, 66f., 90, 93, 136f., 143, 160, 163ﬀ., 166, 168ﬀ., 179-183, 185, 191f., 211 Kottsieper, I. 162, 180 Kreuzer, S. 144, 160 Kugel, J.L. 98, 137

Hagedorn, A.C. 178 Hallo, W.W. 1, 30, 178 Harden, J.M. 109 Hasel, G.F. 4, 30 Hendel, R. 186, 211 Herdner, A. 184 Hesychia 95 Hess, R.S. 172, 178 Hobbins, J. 174 Hoftijzer, J. 184 Horwitz, W.J. 162, 178f. Hubmann, F.D. 4, 30

Lake, H. 106, 137, 206, 211 Lake, K. 106, 137, 206, 211 Landgraf, A. 146, 149f., 160 Langlamet, F. 7, 32 Langton, S. 141-161 LaSor, W.S. 168, 180 ´ Lef`evre d’Etaples, J. 109 Levine, B.A. 176 Levine, E. 96, 137 Lieberman, S.J. 1, 32 Light, L. 147f., 160 Lipschuetz, L. 5, 32 Loewe, R. 109, 137 Loewinger, D.S. 123, 137 Longman III, T. 171, 173, 180 Loretz, O. 180, 184 Lucianus 95 Lundbom, J.R. 190, 193, 206, 211f. Luther, M. 155

Jellicoe, S. 95, 104f., 136 Jenner, K.D. 114, 136, 197f., 211 Jerome 95f., 107ﬀ., 110f., 147f. Jongeling, K. 184 Jongkind, D. 22

Mabie, F.J. 163, 165, 168, 170, 180 Maimonides 123, 144 Mangenot, E. 141, 145, 150, 160 Marcotte de Sainte-Marie, H. 108ﬀ., 137 Margoliouth, G. 126, 128-131, 137

Index of Authors

Martianay, J. 109 Martin, J.-P.P. 151, 153, 155f., 160f. Martini, C.M. 59 McHardy, W.D. 30 Mendelssohn 170 Metzger, B.M. 44, 46, 59 Milik, J.T. 97, 99f., 134, 137 Miller, C.L. 163, 180 Miller, H. 105, 137 Molin, G. 30 Morag, S. 4, 32 Moran, W.L. 32 Muraoka, T. 79, 90, 176 Murtonen, A. 4, 32, 119, 137 Narkiss, B. 129, 137 Nathan, I. 146 Navarro Peiro, A. 121, 135 Nebe, G.W. 180 Nemoy, L. 179 Nestle, E. 48 Neubauer, A. 130f., 138 N¨ oldeke, Th. 115, 138 Oesch, J.M. 1f., 4, 29-33, 90, 93, 111, 136ﬀ., 144, 160f., 177, 179-183 Olley, J.W. 19, 25, 32, 46, 59 Origen 45, 92, 95f. Osburn, C.D. 44f., 49, 59 Oßwald, E. 155, 161 Oudin, C. 150 Peels, H.G.L. 31 Penkower, J.S. 141, 146, 161, 206, 212 P´erez Castro, F. 4, 32, 124, 138 Pietersma, A. 64, 189, 212 Pintaudi, R. 37 Pope, M.H. 173 Porter, S.E. 44-60 Porter, W.J. 45f., 60 Postgate, J.N. 183 Price, J.D. 62f., 67, 91 Prijs, J. 4, 33 Prinsloo, G.T.M. 181

Redford, D.B. 33 Reif, S.C. 122, 138 Revell, E.J. 4-6, 15, 24, 30, 33, 61-91, 97, 105, 112, 117, 138, 169, 212 Richler, B. 127, 138 Roberts, C.H. 105, 138 Robertson, A.F. 162, 181 Robinson, P. 187, 212 Rof´e, A. 193, 212 Rusch, A. 155, 161 Sanders, J.A. 101f., 126, 138 Sanders, P. 66f., 80, 91, 103, 117, 124f., 133, 139, 168 Sanmart´ın, J. 183, 184 Saunders, M. 189, 212 Schenker, A. 25, 33 Schererr, A. 181 Schiller-Szinessy, S.M. 122, 126-129, 139 Schmid, O. 141, 143-146, 148-152, 155, 161 Sch¨ onmetzer, A. 156, 160 Scrivener, F.H.A. 45, 60 Segall, J. 122, 139 Segert, S. 181 Seybold, K. 30 Shaked, S. 94, 139 Shila 99 Sirat, C. 4, 131, 139 Skehan, P.W. 101, 139 Slotki, I.W. 168, 181 Smalley, B. 147, 156, 161 Sperber, A. 19, 33, 95f., 139 St. Cher, H. of 148, 154-159 Steck, O.H. 19, 33 Stirnemann, P. 157, 161 Stipp, H.-J. 190, 212 Stol, M. 181 Stoop-Van Paridon, P.W.T. 172ﬀ., 181 Strack, H.L. 5, 29, 206, 213 Sweeney, M.A. 166, 181 Symmachus 95 Sznycer, M. 184

Quentin, H. 144f., 148, 161 Rahlfs, A. 104, 138

219

Tal, A. 115, 139 Tatu, S. 92-140

220

Index of Authors

Tertel, H.J. 1, 33 Testuz, M. 112, 136 Theodotion 95 Theodulph 109, 142, 145, 148 Thomas, D.W. 30 Tigay, J.H. 1, 33 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 136 Tov, E. 1f., 7, 16, 18, 22, 33, 41ﬀ., 46, 60, 94f., 97, 99, 103, 110ﬀ., 116, 123, 139f., 167, 175, 182, 188-191, 194, 196, 213 Trevet, N. 150 Trivet, N. 109 Tropper, J. 162f., 182 Turner, E.G. 46, 60 Ulrich, E. 100f., 140, 167, 169, 182, 190, 213 Vallarsi, D. 109 Van Baasten, M.F.J. 176, 182 Van Banning, J.H.A. 141-161 Van den Berg, E. 7, 33 Van der Heide, A. 4, 33f. Van der Kooij, A. 190, 213 Van der Lugt, P. 182 Van der Meer, W. 182 Van der Toorn, K. 1, 34 Van der Woude, A.S. 136, 182 Van Peursen, W.Th. 176, 182, 197f., 211

Van Rensburg, J.F.J. 162, 181 Vanstiphout, H.L.J. 175, 182 Vattioni, F. 191, 214 Vercellone, C. 214 Victorius, M. 109 Vivaldi 170 Volz, H. 155, 161 Von Gall, A.F. 115, 140 Von Weerts, J. 119, 140 Wagner, C.J.. 191, 214 Watson, W.G.E. 92, 162-184 Weisberg, D.B. 16f., 34 Wenham, J.W. 38, 43 Wevers, J.W. 33 Wickes, W. 62, 65, 68, 91 Williams, T.F. 106, 140 Williams, T.F. 140 Wilson, G.H. 99, 140 Wright, D.P. 183 W¨ urthwein, E. 94f., 105, 123, 140 Wyatt, N. 163, 183 Yalon, H. 4f., 34 Yeivin, I. 63, 65f., 71ﬀ., 75f., 79, 86, 91, 117 Zainer, G. 109 Zotenberg, H. 2-4, 34

Index of Biblical Texts Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:13 5:31 6:1 6:9 6:21-22 8:15 10:32 11:1-9 12:19-20 22:10 23:8 24:41 31:52 36:15-17 36:29-30 36:40-43 37:1-2 43:33 49

65f. 157 157 142 153 63f. 158 159 153. 69f. 85 84 84f. 112 112 112 158 153 93, 111, 113, 116, 132 49:6–50:2 118 49:8 66 Exodus 8:24 80 10:27–12:18 118 11:1–12:19 118 14:27–16:3 118 15:1-19 93, 97ﬀ., 101, 110, 113, 115f., 122, 126-132 15:15-19 118 20:10 87f. 22:24 84 32:32 85 33:23 152 34:1 152 Leviticus 6:1-2 6:21

152. 84

7:1, 7 8:1-2 10 10:15 11 11:12-26 11:12 11:20 11:20-21 11:21 11:28 11:45 12:2 12:8 14:54-56 17:1-2 19:1-2 23 23:22 23:25 25 27:8

158 152 35 40 35 39 40 38, 40 38, 40 38, 40 40 40 38 40 86 153 153 35 40 40 35 84

Numbers 13:1–14:10 17:1–18:24 17:16–18:24 20:19 21:21–22:1 22:2–24:25 23:7–24:19 26:52–27:11 29:12–30:1 29:35–30:1

5, 17 12 12 85 6, 18 6 132 13 11 7, 19

Deuteronomy 5:12-15 5:14 7:13 13:5 13:7 21:7 22:30

86 86, 88 88 85 88 79 158

23:1 158 23:24–24:3 104 25:1-3 104 26:5 64 26:12 104 26:17-19 104 28:31-33 104 30:17 80 31:17 175 32:1-43 93, 97ﬀ., 101, 110, 113, 115ﬀ., 123, 126-132 32:13 80 33 93, 101, 111, 113, 116, 123, 127, 129, 131f. 33:7–34:6 118 33:19 80 Joshua 6:26 6:27 7:2 7:10 8:1 9:3 9:27–11:3 10:12-13 10:14 10:28 12:9-24 13:33 14:1 15:45 15:48 15:52 15:58 15:60 16:1 17:15 18:21

9, 18 9, 18 9 9 9 9 35 37 9 9 98, 124, 126 9, 19 9, 19 6, 9 6, 9 6, 9 6, 9 9 6 85 6, 9

222

18:25 19:7 19:32 19:49 21:1 21:4 21:8 21:17 21:23 21:28 21:30 21:40 23:5 24:19 24:21

Index of Biblical Texts

9 6, 9 6 6 6 6, 9 9 6 6 6 6 9, 17 9 9 9

Judges 1:30 1:34 4:13 5

6:7 6:21 6:22 7:5 7:23 8:10 8:11 9:15 9:37 14:20 15:1 16:1 16:7 16:17 17:1 18:7 19:5, 7 20:20 20:35 21:19 21:23

9 9 9 93, 99, 113, 122, 124, 127ﬀ., 132 9 9 9, 17 9, 17 9 8 9 85 9 9, 19 9, 19 9 81, 84 84 68f. 9 80 9 9 9 9

1 Samuel 1:1

68f.

1:2 1:11 2:1-10 2:10 3:6 3:19 4:18 5:9 6:1 6:9 6:15 6:21 8:10 8:11 9:21 9:22 10:10 10:18 10:22 13:15 13:19 14:1 14:12 14:17 14:19 14:25 14:36 14:52 15:17 15:22 15:23 15:26 15:27 15:32 15:33 15:34 16:2 16:12 17:9 17:15 17:17 17:26 17:37 17:48 18:30 19:1

71 72, 74, 80 93, 111, 113, 132 113 9 9 9 9 9 85 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9, 17 9, 17 9 9 9 9, 17 9 9, 17 9 9, 17 9 9 9 9 9 9, 80 9 9 9 9, 17 9, 17 80 9 9 9 9, 17 9 9 9

19:11 19:14 19:15 20:10 20:11 20:12 20:18 20:21 20:22 20:21 20:27 20:30 20:32 20:34 21:6 21:10 22:5 22:6 22:8 22:9 22:12 22:18 23:2 23:4 23:6 23:10 23:11 23:19 24:2 24:7 24:9 24:17 25:32 26:8 26:10 26:15 26:21 26:25 27:11 28:16 29:4 30:1 30:13 30:22 30:23 30:29

85 9 9 9 9 9 9 68 68 68 9, 17 9 9 9 9 9, 85 9 9 9, 17 9 9 9 9, 17 9, 17 9 9 9, 17 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 65 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Index of Biblical Texts

2 Samuel 1:13 2:3 2:5 3:14 3:20 3:25 5:1 7:25 10:11 10:17 11:2 11:25 12:1 12:7 12:8 12:13 12:28 12:31 12:32 14:5 14:8 14:10 14:13 14:24 14:28 14:31 15:6 15:7 15:8 15:26 15:27 16:10 16:11 16:13 16:14 17:1 17:5 17:14 17:15 17:24 17:24 17:27 18:2 18:4 18:28 18:32

9 65 9 9 9 73 9 9 85 9, 17 77 9 9 9 84 9, 17 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 15 85 83 9 9 9 9, 17 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9, 17 9 9, 17 9

19:1 19:6 19:9 19:17 19:23 19:25 19:30 19:39 19:43 19:49 20:1 20:4 20:6 20:9 20:10 20:14 21:1 21:6 22

22:2 22:3 22:4 22:14 22:26 22:27 22:36 22:47 22:50 23:9 23:18 23:24-39 23:24 23:26 23:27 23:28 23:29 23:30 23:31 23:32 23:33 23:34 23:35 23:36 23:37 23:38

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9, 17 9, 17 9, 17 9, 17 93, 98, 111, 113, 124, 127ﬀ., 131f. 113 113 113 113 113 69 113 113 113 9 9 67 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9, 17 9

223

23:39 24:3 24:10 24:11 24:17

9 9 9, 17 9, 17 9

1 Kings 1:4 1:7 1:26 1:43 1:52 3:1 4:1 4:3 4:8 4:9 4:11 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:16 4:17 4:18–8:33 4:18 7:51 8:33 8:41 9:26 10:14 11:14 11:41 12:20 12:27 13:8 15:25 16:23 17:14 17:21 18:21 20:23 20:26 20:18 20:31 21:6 21:17-19 22:8

78 9 88 10 85 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 173 9 10 65 9 189 10 9 85 84 9 9 9 74 85 9 9 82-83 9 81 75 71

224

22:31

Index of Biblical Texts

17

2 Kings 1:4 1:10, 12 2:10 2:14 5:20 6:7 8:16 8:18 9:25 11:17 12:1 15:37 19:1 19:35 20:21 21:1 25:23

10 84 82 17 10 10 17 10 75 10 10 10 158 10 158 158 10

Isaiah 1:1–5:17 5:18 5:20 7:3 7:20 7:21 10:27 13:9 15:1 16:5 16:7 16:13 17:1 17:7 19:16 19:23 26:1 26:12 27:2 28:23 30:1 30:14 32:18 33:10 34:1

7 10 10, 20 10, 20 10, 20 10, 20 10, 20f. 10, 20f. 153 10, 20 10, 20-22 10, 20 153 10, 20, 22 10, 20, 22 10, 20f. 10 20, 22 10, 20 10,20 10, 20 10, 20, 22 10, 20, 22 10, 20 10, 20

36:16 37:1 37:15 37:21 42:10 43:25 45:9 46:2 46:5 48:2 48:20 49:5 49:8 49:25 50:10 51:3 52:4 53:1 56:3 57:3 60:1–63:6 62:6 63:17 64:3

10, 17, 20f. 10, 20 10, 20 10, 20f. 130 10, 20, 22 10, 20 65 20 65 10, 20 10, 20 10, 20 10, 20f. 10, 20 10, 20, 22 10, 20 10, 20 10, 20 10, 20 69 10, 20, 22 10, 20, 22 10, 20, 22

Jeremiah 1:12–2:29 6 1:14 10 3:6 10 4:19 10 4:31 42 5:20 10 6:21 10 7:12 10 8:17 10 8:23 10 9:3 10 9:19 10 9:22–10:18 197 9:25–10:18 194 10:22 10 11:20 10 10:13 10 13:12 10, 17, 19 14:13 10 15:11 10 15:17 10

15:18 16:3 17:7 17:11 17:21 18:18 19:15 22:3 22:11 22:28 22:30 23:1 23:14 23:30 23:33 25:27 26:11 26:22 27–29 27:1–28:3 27:3 27:9 27:11 27:13 27:19 28:11-12 28:15 29:8 29:13 29:17 29:24 32:26 33:4 35:19 36:32 37:17 37:18 38:2 38:7 38:17 38:28 39:1 39:2 39:15 41:7 42:1 42:18

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10, 17 10 10 185-214 199-205 196 190f., 196 196 193 10 194f. 187f. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10, 17 10 10 10 10 10 10

Index of Biblical Texts

43:4 43:5 44:23 45:2 45:4 46:28 47:2 47:6 49:12 49:20 50:1 50:6 50:21 50:22 50:31 50:41 51:54 51:58 52:4 52:28 52:31

188 188 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10, 18 10 10 65 10 10 10 10 10

Ezekiel 1:20 8:15 9:1 10:1 12:3 13:1-2 15:1-2 16:1-2 17:1 17:1-2 17:10 18:24 20:21 20:27 22:19 23:11 23:35 25:13 25:16 26:3 32:3 33:27 36:11 38:7

80 10 10 10 10 152 152 152 15 152 15 10 88 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

38:14 43:18 43:27 44:9 45:16 48:12

10 10 10, 17 10 10 10

Hosea 7:14 9:17 12:10 13:8 14:9

16 16 16 16 16 16

Nahum 2:1

154

Zephaniah

11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

11

Habakkuk 2:18 3 3:3

1:8 2:8

Amos 4:10 4:12 5:3 5:9 6:8 6:11 7:1 7:4 7:10 7:14 8:11 9:7

5:5 5:7 7:5 7:7 7:9 7:18

6 10 11 11 10

Joel 2:28-32

225

11 132 11

12 12

Haggai 1:13

12

Zechariah 1:16 8:4 11:17 12:7 13:1 14:12

12 12 12 12 12 12

Malachi Jonah 4:4

11

1:6

83

Psalms Micah 1:2 1:13 2:1-13 2:3 2:8 2:12 3:3 3:9 4:7 4:11 5:2

16 16 170 11 16 11 16 5, 11 16 11 11

1–14 1:1, 3 1:1-3 2 2:1 2:2 2:12 3 3:3, 5 3:4 3:7 3:8

103, 124, 133 115 106 106 115 114, 115 115 106 114 102 102 115

226

4:2 115 4:3, 5 114 4:8 102 5:9 102 7 103, 104 7:6 114 8 103, 104 8:3 102 8:6 102 9 110, 115 9:13 103 9:17 103 9:19 103 9:21 114 10 103, 110 10:13-18 119 11 103 11:4 103 12:1-7 119 12:6-9 103 12:12 102 13 106 13:3 114 14 103 14:8 102 15 103 15:1-3 103 15:2-3 102 15:8-9 102 16:7 102 17:5-9 101 17:20-21 106 18 98, 103 18:1 115 18:6-13 101, 102 19:2–26:11 118 20:3 102 20:4, 5, 7 114 20:8 102 22:4-6 103 22:7-8 102, 103 22:9-11 103 22:15-17 103 22:13–23:2 118 22:18-20 103 22:20–23:5 118 23 103

Index of Biblical Texts

23:1-4 118 23:7 102 23:8 102 24 103 24:2–25:12 118 25 143 25:6 102 26:4 102 26:6, 13 102 26:12–27:7 120 27:1 120 27:2-4 102 27:12 102 28:7–31:3 120 28:10 102 29 103, 120 29:1 115 31:12–33:1 120 32:1-11 120 33:15–35:7 121 33:16–35:4 118 34 143 35:16–36:5 121 36 104 36:5 121 37:20–38:8 121 38:1 115 39:3–40:13 120 39:6 121 39:7 121 39:12 121 39:13 121 40:4–41:7 118 40:6 121 41:5–46:12 119 42 120 42:1 120 43 120 44 99, 120 44:1 120 45:1 120 46:1 120 50:3-7 103 52:5–59:6 120 55:1 120 57:1 120 58:1 120

59:1 120 60:2–62:4 120 61:1 120 62 115 62:1 120 63:10–78:32 121 65:1–66:13 118 67:11 106 68 104 69 104 70 104 71–81 105 75:10–78:13 121 77 104 78:10 80 81 104 82 104 83 104 83:12–85:7 118 84 104 87:4–89:30 118 90:11–92:4 121 95 115 95–102 131 96:1 130 98:1 130 99:8–103:7118 101 125 102:22–107:20 121 103 125 104 97 104:9 125 104:23–136:21 121 104:24–106:4 131 105:20–106:35 118 105:27–106:24 132 108:4 125 109:9–111:9 118 110:3-4 115 111:9-10 115 112 125 112:9-10 115 114 124 115 124 118 101, 104 118:12-14 119 118:27-29 101

Index of Biblical Texts

118:28–119:3 119 119 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 110, 114, 115, 125, 128, 130 119:18 97 119:35-75 132 119:42 97 119:76-82 119 119:92-99 119 119:139 97 119:163-165 103 121:7 102 122 102 122:4, 6 97 126 99 127-141 105 127 99 128 99 129:1–134:1 118 135 115 143:4–146:10 118 145:12 125 145:13 125 145:15 125 145:21 125 146–147 115 147 97 149:1 130 150 97 151 101 Job 1:1–3:1 61 1:5–3:4 119 1:13 12 2:2 12 2:11–9:32 119 3–42:6 108 5:4-6 119 5:22-24 119 6:14–10:16 122 8:3–9:20 292 10:5–11:16 119 13 97 14 97 19:1-2 153

20:1-2 153 22:4–23:15121 23:7-13 121 26:2-4 119 27:6-8 119 32:3 12 32:4 12 32:5 12 36:23-34 121 36:32–38:16 121 37:12–38:36 118 40:1-15 119 40:28–41:1 119 42:7-17 62 42:10-17 121 42:11 12 Proverbs 1:1-25 121 3:4 13 3:11 13 5–10 104 6:1 13 6:26 13 7:24 13 9:4–10:32 121 9:13-15 97 11:28 13 14:1 13 18:8 13 19:10 13 20 104 23:1 13 23:6 13 24:28 13 26:17–30:2 121 28:5 13 28:17 13 29:18 13 30:15-20 115 30:23-31 121 30:33 115

227

4:14

170

Song of Songs 1:2 1:8 1:15-17 2 2:7 2:15 3:5 3:9 3:11 4:1 4:8–6:10 5 5:1 5:8 6 7:6 8:4

13 13 171ﬀ. 104 174 13 174 173f. 13 13 175 104 175 174 104 13 174

Qohelet 1:7 3:1-9 3:2-9 3:5 8:14–10:4 10:1

80 126 25-28 27 121 17

Lamentations 3:56 5:10

65 13

Esther 1:10 1:13 1:19 2:5 4:15 5:1 9:7-9 9:12 9:20

13 13 13 69f. 64 13 98 13 13

Ruth 1:18 1:22 4:13

13 13 170

Daniel 2:19 2:31

14 14

228

2:37 3:3 3:10 3:21 3:26 3:28 5:8 5:9 6:15 6:16 6:26 12:3 12:9 12:12

Index of Biblical Texts

14 14 14 14 13 14 13, 18 14, 18 14 14 14 13 13 14

Ezra 1:1–2:2 1:9 1:10 1:11 2:3 2:3-42 2:43 2:43-57 2:44 2:45 2:46 2:47 2:48 2:49 2:50 2:51 2:53 2:54 2:55 2:56 2:57 2:58 2:60 2:62 2:63 2:64 2:69 3:1 3:9 3:12 4:11

3 14, 19 14, 19 14 14 126 14 126 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14, 17 14, 17 14, 17 14 14

4:14 4:21 4;12 4:18 5:2 5:4 5:6 5:9 7:25 8:1-13 8:2 8:3 9:3 10:4 10:12 10:20-44 10:21 10:22 10:25 10:36 10:39 10:40 10:41 10:42 10:44

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 126 14, 17 14, 17 14 14 14 126 14, 18 14, 18 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Nehemiah 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:8 3:10 3:14 3:23 3:26 3:27 3:29 3:30 3:39 3:40 3:41 3:42 3:44 7:1 7:14

14 14, 14 14, 14 14, 14, 14 14, 14 14 14, 14, 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

17 17 17 17

7:24 7:26 7:29 7:30 7:33 7:47 7:48 7:49 7:50 7:51 7:52 7:53 7:54 7:55 7:56 7:57 7:58 7:59 7:60 7:68 7:69 7:70 8:17 9:16 10:12 10:29 12:13 12:15 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:21 12:22 12:29 13:5

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14 14, 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

126 126 126 126 126 126 126 17

17 1 Chronicles 17 17

1:7 1:9 1:17 1:18 1:24 1:28 1:29 1:31 1:33 1:34

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14, 17

Index of Biblical Texts

1:35 1:38 1:40 1:41 1:42 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:18 2:21 2:31 2:33 2:42 2:47 2:50 3:22 4:1 4:28 5:11 5:14 5:28 5:29 5:30 6:14 6:24 6:29 6:33 6:42 6:50 6:63 7:3 7:6 7:7 7:14 8:3 8:29 8:33 8:35 9:2 9:12 9:33 9:39 10:4 10:6 10:11

14 14 14, 14, 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14, 14, 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14, 14 14

17 17

18 18

17

10:31 10:32 10:33 11:33f. 11:47 12:10 12:13 12:19 14:3 14:8 15:17 16:5 16:8-36 16:13 16:14 16:15 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:19 16:20 16:21 16:22 16:24 16:25 16:27 16:28 16:29 16:30 16:32 16:33 16:34 16:35 16:36 16:39 19:4 19:6 19:8 19:12 20:5 20:6 21:8 21:13 22:1 22:6 23:7 23:13

14, 17 14, 17 14 16 14 14 14, 17 14 14 14 14, 17 14 113 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14, 17 14 14 14 14 14 14, 17 14 14

229 23:15 23:18 23:20 23:23 24:6 24:8 24:9 24:10 24:11 24:12 24:13 24:14 24:15 24:16 24:17 24:18 24:20 24:23 25:2 25:3 25:6 25:10 25:11 25:12-31 26:6 26:15 26:21 26:30 27:4 27:5 27:6 27:25 27:26 27:28 27:29 27:30 27:31 27:32 27:33 28:9

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 14, 15 15 15 14 14 15 15 15 14, 16 14, 14 14, 14 14 14 15 14, 14

17

16 17 17

17

2 Chronicles 1:18 4:9 4:11 5:1 5:11

15 15 15 15, 17 15

230

5:26 6:34 6:41 7:3 7:10 9:22 9:30 10:1 10:6 10:6 10:12 10:17 11:18 12:1-2 13:1 13:6 13:7 13:10 13:22

Index of Biblical Texts

15 15 15 15 15 15 158 158 15 15 15 15 15 158. 15 15 15 15 15

14:7 15:1 16:12 17:14 17:19 18:23 19:1 19:4 19:28 22:10 22:11 23:9 23:12 24:6 24:26 27:6 28:7 28:9 28:14

15, 17 15 15 15 15 15 15 15, 17 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15, 17 15 15 15

29:11 15 30:1 15 30:20 15 30:24 15, 17 31:17 15, 17 32:32 15 33:13, 19 155 34:12 15 34:23 15 34:26 15, 17 35:1 15 35:25 15 36 123 36:1 15 36:15 15 36:18 15 36:23 15

New Testament Matthew 3:1 3:3 3:7-17 3:7 3:10-11 3:10 3:11 3:12-13 3:12 3:13 3:17 4:23–5:12 4:23–5:11 4:23 4:25–5:1 4:25 5:1 5:2-3 5:2 5:3-4 5:3 5:4-5

47f. 188 46ﬀ., 57 47f. 57 47 47f. 57 47 47f. 47, 57 46, 48ﬀ., 57 48 57 57 49 49f. 57 49 57 49 57

5:4 5:5 5:6-7 5:6 5:7-8 5:7 5:8-9 5:8 5:9-10 5:9 5:10-11 5:10 5:11 5:12 6:31-34 7:9-14 7:9 7:13-20 7:13 7:14-15 7:14 7:15 7:20

49f. 49 57 49 57 49f. 57 49 57 49 57 49 49 57 50 50 50 46, 50-51, 57 50, 57 57 50 50f. 50, 57

9:35 46, 52, 57 9:36–10:8 52 10:32-33 51 10:37–11:1 51 10:37-42 46, 51, 57-58 10:37-38 51, 57 10:37 51, 57 10:38-39 57 10:38 51 10:39-41 51 10:39 51 10:40 51 10:42 57 11:1 51 11:2 51 19:27-30 51 Mark 1:3 6:17 6:20 6:21 6:18-29

188 52 52 52 46, 52, 58

Index of Biblical Texts

Luke 2:1-20 2:8 2:15 3:4 11:27-32 24:36-38 24:36-53

46, 52, 58 52 52 188 46, 53, 58 46, 53, 58 53

John 7:14-30 20:1-18 20:1-10

45 46, 53-54, 58 54

20:1 20:10-11 20:10 20:11 20:11-18 20:19-23 20:24-27 20:25 20:26 20:29

231

54 54 54 54 54 54 46, 54-55, 58 54 54 54

Romans

44 44

1 John

4:3 10:11

44 44

1 Corinthians 14:26

44

Galatians 3:8 4:30

44 44

Acts 1:16 8:35

3

149

Method in Unit Delimitation (Pericope 6)

The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis (Pericope, 7)

Brock Mikroorganizmaların Biyolojisi (Unit 6)

Unit Operations in Chemical Engineering

Maritime Delimitation (Publications on Ocean Development, 53)

Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering

Unit Processes In Organic Synthesis

The Unit

The Unit

Family Unit

The Unit

The Unit

Combat Unit

The Unit

The Unit

Unit operations

The Unit

The Unit

Tandem Unit

Tandem Unit

Tandem Unit

The Unit

The Unit

The Unit

The Unit

The Unit

Combat Unit

Scientific method in practice

Meaning in Spinoza's method

The Project Physics Course: Unit 6 Test Booklet: The Nucleus

Linguistic Method in Philosophy

Method in Unit Delimitation (Pericope 6)

The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis (Pericope, 7)

Brock Mikroorganizmaların Biyolojisi (Unit 6)

Unit Operations in Chemical Engineering

Maritime Delimitation (Publications on Ocean Development, 53)

Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering

Unit Processes In Organic Synthesis

The Unit

The Unit

Family Unit

The Unit

The Unit

Combat Unit

The Unit

The Unit

Unit operations

The Unit

The Unit

Tandem Unit

Tandem Unit

Tandem Unit

The Unit

The Unit

The Unit

The Unit

The Unit

Combat Unit

Scientific method in practice

Meaning in Spinoza's method

The Project Physics Course: Unit 6 Test Booklet: The Nucleus

Linguistic Method in Philosophy

Recommend Documents