The Formation of the Pentateuch

Bridging the Academic Cultures of

Europe, Israel, and North America

Edited by
Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson,
Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid

Mohr Siebeck

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

Jan C. Gertz is Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at the Ruprecht-Karls-Uni-
versität Heidelberg.

Bernard M. Levinson is Professor of Jewish Studies and Hebrew Bible and of Law at the
University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Dalit Rom-Shiloni is Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at the Department of Bibli-

cal Studies, Tel Aviv University.

Konrad Schmid is Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at the University of Zurich.

ISBN 978-3-16-153883-4
ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament)
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2016  by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted
by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to
reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic s­ ystems.
The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by
Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier.
Printed in Germany.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Table of Contents

Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Konrad Schmid

Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal Theory – The Genesis
and Goals of This Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part One
Empirical Perspectives on the Composition of the Pentateuch
Jan Christian Gertz
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Christopher A. Rollston
Inscriptional Evidence for the Writing of the Earliest Texts of the
Bible – Intellectual Infrastructure in Tenth- and Ninth-Century Israel,
Judah, and the Southern Levant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

David P. Wright
The Covenant Code Appendix (Exodus 23:20–33), Neo-Assyrian
Sources, and Implications for Pentateuchal Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

David M. Carr
Data to Inform Ongoing Debates about the Formation of the
Pentateuch – From Documented Cases of Transmission History to a
Survey of Rabbinic Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Molly M. Zahn
Innerbiblical Exegesis – The View from beyond the Bible . . . . . . . . . 107

Armin Lange
From Many to One – Some Thoughts on the Hebrew Textual History
of the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

VI Table of Contents

Part Two
Can the Pentateuch Be Read in Its Present Form?
Narrative Continuity in the Pentateuch
in Comparative Perspective

Jeffrey Stackert
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Jean Louis Ska

What Do We Mean by Plot and by Narrative Continuity? . . . . . . . . . 201

Yairah Amit
Travel Narratives and the Message of Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Joel S. Baden
Why Is the Pentateuch Unreadable? – Or, Why Are We Doing This
Anyway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Jeffrey Stackert
Pentateuchal Coherence and the Science of Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Jean-Pierre Sonnet
Does the Pentateuch Tell of Its Redactional Genesis? – The
Characters of YHWH and Moses as Agents of Fortschreibung in the
Pentateuchʼs Narrated World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Joel S. Baden
Continuity between the Gaps – The Pentateuch and the Kirta Epic . . . . . 283

Part Three
The Role of Historical Linguistics in the Dating of Biblical Texts

Shimon Gesundheit
Introduction – The Strengths and Weaknesses of Linguistic Dating . . . . 295

Erhard Blum
The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts – An Approach with
Methodological Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Jan Joosten
Diachronic Linguistics and the Date of the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . 327

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Table of Contents VII

William M. Schniedewind
Linguistic Dating, Writing Systems, and the Pentateuchal Sources . . . . . 345

Thomas Römer
How to Date Pentateuchal Texts – Some Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Noam Mizrahi
The Numeral 11 and the Linguistic Dating of P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

Jakob Wöhrle
Thereʼs No Master Key! – The Literary Character of the Priestly
Stratum and the Formation of the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

Frank H. Polak
Oral Platform and Language Usage in the Abraham Narrative . . . . . . . 405

Frank H. Polak
Storytelling and Redaction – Varieties of Language Usage in the
Exodus Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

Part Four
The Significance of Second Temple Literature and the
Dead Sea Scrolls for the Formation of the Pentateuch
Bernard M. Levinson
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479

Sidnie White Crawford

What Constitutes a Scriptural Text? – The History of Scholarship on
Qumran Manuscript 4Q158 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483

Molly M. Zahn
Scribal Revision and the Composition of the Pentateuch –
Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491

Reinhard G. Kratz
Reworked Pentateuch and Pentateuchal Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501

Richard J. Bautch
Holy Seed – Ezra 9–10 and the Formation of the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . 525

Sara Japhet
What May Be Learned from Ezra–Nehemiah about the Composition
of the Pentateuch? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

VIII Table of Contents

Part Five
Evidence for Redactional Activity in the Pentateuch
Konrad Schmid
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563

Jean Louis Ska

Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism. . . . . . . . . 567

Christoph Levin
The Pentateuch – A Compilation by Redactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579

Konrad Schmid
Post-Priestly Additions in the Pentateuch – A Survey of Scholarship . . . . 589

Part Six
The Integration of Preexisting Literary Material in the
Pentateuch and the Impact upon Its Final Shape
Joel S. Baden
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607

Rainer Albertz
Noncontinuous Literary Sources Taken Up in the Book of Exodus . . . . . 609

Itamar Kislev
The Story of the Gadites and the Reubenites (Numbers 32) – A Case
Study for an Approach to a Pentateuchal Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619

Karin Finsterbusch
Integrating the Song of Moses into Deuteronomy and Reshaping
the Narrative – Different Solutions in MT Deut 31:1–32:47 and (the
Hebrew Vorlage of) LXX Deut 31:1–32:47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631

David P. Wright
Source Dependence and the Development of the Pentateuch – The
Case of Leviticus 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Table of Contents IX

Part Seven
Historical Geography of the Pentateuch
and Archaeological Perspectives
Jan Christian Gertz
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685

David Ben-Gad HaCohen

Biblical Criticism from a Geographerʼs Perspective – “Transjordan”
as a Test Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687

Israel Finkelstein and Thomas Römer

Early North Israelite “Memories” of Moab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711

Thomas B. Dozeman
The Historical Geography of the Pentateuch and Archaeological
Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729

Jan Christian Gertz

Hezekiah, Moses, and the Nehushtan – A Case Study for a Correlation
between the History of Religion in the Monarchic Period and the
History of the Formation of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745

Angela Roskop Erisman

For the Border of the Ammonites Was . . . Where? – Historical
Geography and Biblical Interpretation in Numbers 21 . . . . . . . . . . . 761

Part Eight
Do the Pentateuchal Sources Extend into the Former Prophets?
Konrad Schmid
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779

Baruch J. Schwartz
The Pentateuchal Sources and the Former Prophets –
A Neo-Documentarianʼs Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783

Cynthia Edenburg
Do the Pentateuchal Sources Extend into the Former Prophets? –
Joshua 1 and the Relation of the Former Prophets to the Pentateuch . . . . 795

Thomas Römer
The Problem of the Hexateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

X Table of Contents

Part Nine
Rethinking the Relationship between the Law and the Prophets

Dalit Rom-Shiloni
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831

Konrad Schmid
The Prophets after the Law or the Law after the Prophets? –
Terminological, Biblical, and Historical Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . 841

Marvin A. Sweeney
Hoseaʼs Reading of Pentateuchal Narratives – A Window for a
Foundational E Stratum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851

Reinhard Achenbach
The Sermon on the Sabbath in Jeremiah 17:19–27 and the Torah . . . . . 873

Georg Fischer
‫ – ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬The Relationship of the Book of Jeremiah to
the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891

Dalit Rom-Shiloni
Compositional Harmonization – Priestly and Deuteronomic
References in the Book of Jeremiah – An Earlier Stage of a
Recognized Interpretive Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913

John Kessler
Patterns of Descriptive Curse Formulae in the Hebrew Bible, with
Special Attention to Leviticus 26 and Amos 4:6–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 943

Mark J. Boda
Reading Zechariah 9–14 with the Law and the Prophets – Sibling
Rivalry and Prophetic Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985

Jakob Wöhrle
Jacob, Moses, Levi – Pentateuchal Figures in the Book of the Twelve . . . 997

Christophe L. Nihan
Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation – A Plea for Nonlinear Models . . . 1015

Ariel Kopilovitz
What Kind of Priestly Writings Did Ezekiel Know? . . . . . . . . . . . 1041

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Table of Contents XI

Michael A. Lyons
How Have We Changed? – Older and Newer Arguments about the
Relationship between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code . . . . . . . . . . . 1055

Tova Ganzel and Risa Levitt Kohn

Ezekielʼs Prophetic Message in Light of Leviticus 26 . . . . . . . . . . 1075

Part Ten
Reading for Unity, Reading for Multiplicity –
Theological Implications of the Study of
the Pentateuchʼs Composition
Benjamin D. Sommer
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087

Benjamin D. Sommer
Book or Anthology? – The Pentateuch as Jewish Scripture . . . . . . . . 1091

Markus Witte
Methodological Reflections on a Theology of the Pentateuch . . . . . . 1109

Jean-Pierre Sonnet
The Dynamic of Closure in the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121

James W. Watts
Narratives, Lists, Rhetoric, Ritual, and the Pentateuch as a Scripture . . . 1135

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1147
Ancient Sources Index
 Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1151
 Ancient Near Eastern and Epigraphic Texts and Papyri . . . . . . . . . 1190
 Deuterocanonical Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
 Second Temple Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
 Texts from the Judean Desert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
 New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194
 Rabbinic Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194
 Early Christian Writings and Greco-Roman Literature . . . . . . . . . 1195
 Medieval Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1195
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission
 Some Empirical Evidence in Favor
of Redaction Criticism
Jean Louis Ska

The historical books of the Old Testament in general did not come into being in as
mechanical a manner as – contra Ewald – is generally believed. In the Pentateuch too,
there are not two or several great historical complexes with the same subject, originally
written independently of each other in such a way that the later one takes no account of
the one written earlier. It is rather that sometimes smaller blocks were joined to a single
core (note: or were probably also assimilated into it), as Gen. 4 is joined to Gen. 2–3;
into this [core] for the first time the individual stories which until then existed in oral
or written form were fitted [. . .] the whole sometimes being newly worked over as a
fresh complex, perhaps in such a way that from the beginning its essential content was
incorporated into the new revision, or in such a way that only the bare outlines of its
plan determined this revision, thus making it possible for a later redactor to combine the
old and the new – there is much to be said in favor of both possibilities. At all events,
modifications of the original core and the revisions of shorter passages, changes in
individual words, and minor interpolations (Gen. 3.20) are indissolubly bound up with
the way in which the historical books developed, and it is difficult to find the dividing
line where literary criticism ceases and textual criticism begins.1

This long quotation comes from Julius Wellhausen, who is often presented as the
most prominent herald of the Documentary Hypothesis, the personality that most
contributed to the triumph of the latter theory over against the Fragmentary and
the Supplementary Hypotheses. There are, indeed, good reasons to think so. It is,
however, possible to find in Wellhausenʼs writings positions much more nuanced
than the presentation of his theory in common and classical introductions to the
Pentateuch. In some of his writings, as in the above quotation taken from a short
commentary on the books of Samuel, we also find affirmations very close to the
Supplementary Hypothesis on the one hand and similarly close to the proponents
of the more recent Redaktionsgeschichte on the other.
The latter “school” or method has come under vehement attack in very recent
years. First, John Van Seters cast doubts on the very existence of “redactors” and
“editors” in antiquity.2 The words redactor and editor were coined during the

1
 J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1871), x–xi.
2
 J. Van S eters , The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical
Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006); cf. also idem, “Author or Redactor?” JHebS

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

568 Jean Louis Ska

Renaissance, in the study of ancient manuscripts, and are applied only anachro-
nistically to the study of the composition of ancient texts. Therefore, John Van
Seters pleads in favor of a theory that supposes the existence of real authors
and writers at the origin of the biblical books. This is the case, especially, with
respect to the Yahwist and the Deuteronomist.
The other vehement attack comes from the so-called Neo-Documentarians,
who plead, sometimes forcefully, on behalf of a return to the Documentary
Hypothesis.3 The two main tenets of their position are the following: (1) The
Documentary Hypothesis is the most satisfactory solution to the problems of
the Pentateuch, since it is a literary solution to a literary problem. (2) According
to this new formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis, four independent
documents (J, E, D, and P) were compiled by one redactor. All historical or
chronological problems are set aside since we do not have any means for solving
them.
In this short paper, I would like to show that there is room for more nu-
anced assumptions than those just exposed. In other words, Wellhausen was
not far off the mark when he said that the border between text criticism and
literary criticism is not easy to trace. My contention is also that the modern
search for redactional additions, modifications, instances of reorganization, or
reinterpretation of former versions of a text has an empirical basis.4 The compar-
ison between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the
Septuagint (LXX), and the Qumran fragments shows that copyists and scribes
worked with a certain freedom. To put it simply, they did not work as our modern
photocopying machines do and were not supposed to work that way. I will take
a few examples from the book of Genesis and the book of Numbers.

1 Genesis 12:6: MT and LXX

In the MT, Gen 12:6 reads: ‫וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹר ַא ְב ָרם ָּב ָא ֶרץ ַעד ְמקֹום ְׁש ֶכם‬, “And Abraham
passed through the land until the place [called] Shechem.” The LXX translates
literally but adds a few words: καὶ διώδευσεν Αβραμ τὴν γῆν εἰς τὸ μῆκος αὐτῆς,
“And Abraham passed through the land to its length [. . .].” The words εἰς τὸ
μῆκος αὐτῆς most probably come from Gen 13:17, an oracle of YHWH to Abram

7 (2007), 1–22, http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_70.pdf (accessed 6/1/13).

3
 See especially J. S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2009); idem, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary
Hypothesis (AYBRL; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012); idem, The Promise to the
Patriarchs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); see also on this problem, T. B. Dozeman
et al. (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT 78; Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011).
4
 Along the same lines, see S. W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008).

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism 569

after the latter had separated from Lot: “Arise, go through the land, to its length
(‫)לארכה‬, to its breadth (‫)לרחבה‬, for to you I will give it.” The LXX translates
this verse faithfully: ἀναστὰς διόδευσον τὴν γῆν εἴς τε τὸ μῆκος αὐτῆς καὶ εἰς τὸ
πλάτος ὅτι σοὶ δώσω αὐτήν.
What is the reason for the LXXʼs addition in Gen 12:6? It seems to me that it
is of a juridical nature. As David Daube demonstrated some time ago, walking
through a piece of land in certain circumstances means taking possession of this
piece of land de iure.5 This is attested in Roman law, for instance in this passage
of Justinianʼs Digest 41.2.3.1:
Quod autem diximus et corpore et animo adquirere nos debere possessionem non utique
ita accipiendum est, ut qui fundum possidere velit, omnes glebas circumambulet: sed
sufficiet quamlibet partem eius fundi introire, dum mente et cogitatione hac sit, ut totum
fundum usque ad terminem velit possidere.
What we have just said, i.e., that we must acquire a property et corpore et animo
[materially and intentionally], does not mean that the person that wants to acquire
a piece of land must go through it in its entirety [must tread every patch of it]: it is
sufficient to enter into any part of the land with the intention of acquiring the plot of
land up to its limits.

In the Hebrew Bible, the clearest example, in my opinion, is to be found in

Num 13, from the Priestly Writer, where God asks Moses to send twelve men,
one from each tribe, to “walk all over the land” (Num 13:2, 17). This is a way
of taking possession of the land de iure, and therefore we have performative
language in Num 13:2, where the participle is used: “Send men to walk all over
(‫ )ויתורו‬the land of Canaan, which I am giving (‫ )אני נתן‬to the people of Israel.
From each tribe of their fathers you shall send a man, everyone a chief among
them.”6 The explorers take possession of the land de iure when walking all over
it. This is the reason why the Priestly version of the text insists on their walking
through the whole land for forty days (Num 13:21).
In my opinion, this is also the reason why YHWH invites Abram to go
through the land in Gen 13:17. After separating from Lot, YHWH gives the land
of Canaan to Abram and the latter takes possession of it de iure when walking
through it, to its length and to its breadth.

5
 D. D aube , Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008),
37–39.
6
 On this text, see N. Lohfink, “Die Landverheißung in Numeri und das Ende der Priester-
schrift: Zu einem rätselhaften Befund im Buch Numeri,” Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur
deuteronomistischen Literatur V (SBAB 38; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 273–
292; on performative language, see Joüon-Muraoka § 112f; see also A. Wagner, Sprechakte
und Sprechaktanalyse im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen im biblischen Hebräisch an der
Nahtstelle zwischen Handlungsebene und Grammatik (BZAW 253; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997);
M. F. Rogland, Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew (SSN 44; Assen: Van
Gorcum, 2003).

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

570 Jean Louis Ska

The LXX transfers a short part of this divine discourse into the narration in
Gen 12:6 to give this passage a more juridical dimension. As soon as Abram
entered the land, he walked through it and took possession of it de iure im-
mediately. In other words, Abram entered the land as proprietor although the
Canaanites were still present in the country, as is said in the same verse, in
Gen 12:6b. Most probably, this note at the end of the verse brought about the
intervention of the Greek translator. The LXX wants to make sure from the start
that Abram is the real owner of the land in spite of the presence of Canaanite
populations.
The difference between Gen 12:6 MT and Gen 12:6 LXX is minimal. It is
also revelatory of the translatorʼs freedom to interpret some texts in the light of
others and to give them a new meaning.7

2 Genesis 12:16a: MT and SP

Genesis 12:16a is part of the narrative about Abramʼs sojourn in Egypt. When
Pharaoh takes Sarai into his harem, he showers gifts on Abram. The list in the
MT comprises “sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants,
female donkeys, and camels.” The Samaritan Pentateuch adds three words to
this impressive list: ‫מקנה כבד מאד‬, “much livestock.” This seems redundant
since Abram receives from Pharaoh almost anything that a cattle breeder may
expect to possess at that time. What is the reason for this addition?
These three words are present in another narrative that is set in Egypt, namely,
in Exod 12:38b. When the Israelites leave Egypt after the death of the firstborn,
they take with them “small cattle (‫)צאן‬, big cattle (‫)בקר‬, [i.e.,] much livestock
(‫)מקנה כבד מאד‬.” The first two words are present in Gen 12:16b MT and in
Exod 12:38: ‫צאן ובקר‬, “small cattle and big cattle,” i.e., “sheep and oxen.” The
SP completed the list in Gen 12:16b with the three words present in Exod 12:38.
This intervention of the SP can be interpreted as an attempt at harmonizing both
texts. But there is perhaps more to it than that. It is possible to detect in this
addition within the SP an attempt to bring out the parallelism between Abramʼs
sojourn in Egypt and the exodus of the Israelites. Several features are common
to Gen 12:10–20 and Exodus: Abram goes down to Egypt because of a famine
(Gen 12:10); Pharaoh is struck with plagues (12:17, ‫ ;נגעים‬cf. Exod 11:1); and
he “sends off” or “expels” (‫וישלחו‬, “and [Pharaoh] sent [Abram] away”) Abram,

7
 For more details on this text, see J. L. Ska, “Gen 12,6 et son interprétation juridique dans
la LXX,” in A Pillar of Cloud to Guide: Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives
on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne (ed. H. Ausloos and B. Lemmelijn; BETL
269; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 449–454.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism 571

who goes back to the promised land (12:20).8 To these features, SP adds another
one, namely, that Abram acquired “much livestock” in Egypt, as it is said that
the Israelites possessed “much livestock” when they left Egypt. This is well
summarized by Nachmanides (Ramban) in his commentary on Gen 12:10–20:
“Everything that happened to the fathers happened to the sons,” or, more specif-
ically, “when an event happens to any one of the three patriarchs, that which is
decreed to happen to his children can be understood.”9 Nachmanides himself is
relying on Genesis Rabbah.10

3 Genesis 47:5: MT and LXX11

This case had already been considered by J. Wellhausen in his Composition des
Hexateuchs.12 His theory was returned to later by M.-J. Lagrange in a study that
was meant to be part of a commentary on the book of Genesis. That commentary
was never published, however, because of difficulties with authorities of the
Catholic Church.13
Genesis 47:1–12 describes in two different ways the meeting of Jacobʼs
family with Pharaoh. In the first version, Joseph goes to Pharaoh and introduces
five of his brothers, who ask for permission to sojourn in the land of Goshen
with their flocks. Pharaoh agrees and even asks that some of them take charge
of his own flocks (47:1–5a).
In the second version, Jacob arrives in Egypt with his family, and Pharaoh
comes to know of his arrival before Joseph does. The king of Egypt announces
to Joseph that his family has arrived. Joseph introduces his father, Jacob, to
Pharaoh. Pharaoh inquires about Jacobʼs age and, after the conversation, Joseph

8
 See, among many others, E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 309–311; T. R ömer , “Exodusmotive und
Ex­odus­polemik in der Erzvätererzählungen,” in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und
Re­li­gionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem
65. Geburts­tag (ed. U. Kottsieper et al.; AOAT 350; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008), 3–20.
9
 Nachmanides (Ramban; 1194–1270), in his commentary on Gen 12:6, and quoted in
M. Z. B rettler , The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995),
48, 52–53. For the text, see Ramban (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah. (trans.
C. B. Chavel; New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), 169.
10
 Gen. Rab., 40:6, quoted in Brettler, Creation of History (see n. 9), 52. The first sen-
tence quoted by Nachmanides can also be found in Midrash Tanhuma, Lekh Lekha, 9.
11
 For a full treatment of this text, let me refer to F. Giuntoli, Lʼofficina della tradizione:
Studio di alcuni interventi redazionali post-sacerdotali e del loro contesto nel ciclo di Giacobbe
(Gen 25,19–50,26) (AnBib 154; Roma: PIB, 2003), 309–340.
12
 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments (3rd ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963 [orig. pub., Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899]), 51–52.
13
 M.-J. Lagrange, “Les sources du Pentateuque,” RB 7 (1898), 10–32, here 15–16.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

572 Jean Louis Ska

settles his brothers in “the best of the land,” or the “land of Rameses,” according
to Pharaohʼs indications (47:5b–12).
Briefly, the main differences are three: (1) In the first version, Joseph an-
nounces to Pharaoh that his father has arrived with his family; in the second, this
happens the other way round, since Pharaoh announces the news to Joseph. (2)
In the first version, five of the brothers ask for permission to sojourn in Egypt
with their flocks; in the second, Pharaoh proposes to settle Jacob and his family
in the best region of Egypt. (3) In the first version, the brothers ask to settle in
the land of Goshen and Pharaoh agrees, whereas in the second, Joseph settles
his family in the best part of the land (or in Rameses), according to Pharaohʼs
instructions. In short, in the first version, the initiative is that of Josephʼs broth-
ers, whereas in the second it is Pharaohʼs.
Scholars defending the classical Documentary Hypothesis attribute the first
version to the Yahwist and the second to the Priestly Writer. There is however
another problem in the MT. The text of Gen 47:5–6 reads:
And Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Your father and your brothers have come to you. The land
of Egypt is before you. In the best part of the land settle your father and your brothers.
Let them settle in the land of Goshen [. . .].”

This creates a serious problem of understanding. The five brothers – introduced

by Joseph to Pharaoh – ask Pharaoh to let them settle in Goshen in 47:4. Ac-
cording to the MT, in 47:5, Pharaoh himself proposes to Joseph that he settle
the whole family in the land of Goshen. Afterward, in 47:11, Joseph settles his
family in the land of Rameses.
The problem is double. First, the question asked by the brothers in 47:4 is
answered by Pharaoh in a different scene. Second, in the same scene, the same
Pharaoh grants the same brothers two different places to settle: the land of
Goshen in 47:6b and the land of Rameses in 47:11.
Now the Greek version of the same passage is more satisfactory. The text is
somewhat longer and in a slightly different order, but the two versions of the
brothersʼ arrival in Egypt are separated more neatly:
Genesis 47:5–6
εἶπεν δὲ Φαραω τῷ Ιωσφη κατοικείτωσαν ἐν γῇ Γεσεμ εἰ δὲ ἐπίστῃ ὅτι εἰσὶν ἐν αὐτοῖς
ἄνδρες δυνατοί κατάστησον αὐτοὺς ἄρχοντας τῶν ἐμῶν κτηνῶν ἦλθον δὲ εἰς Αἴγυπτον πρὸς
Ιωσηφ Ιακωβ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤκουσεν Φαραω βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου καὶ εἶπεν Φαραω
πρὸς Ιωσηφ λέγων ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἥκασι πρὸς σέ ἰδοὺ ἡ γῆ Αἰγύπτου
ἐναντίον σού ἐστιν ἐν τῇ βελτίστῃ γῇ κατοίκισον τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφούς
σου [. . .].
And Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Let them settle in the land of Geshem. If you know that
there are among them capable men, appoint them in charge of my livestock.” Jacob
and his sons came to Joseph in Egypt and Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard about it and
Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Your father and your brothers have come to you. See, the
land of Egypt is before you. Settle your father and your brothers in the best part of the
land [. . .].”

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism 573

The primary differences between the MT and the LXX are two. First, the Greek
text contains a plus, namely, “Jacob and his sons came to Joseph in Egypt and
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard about it and Pharaoh said to Joseph,” which is
found at the end of v. 5. Second, the order of the text is different. We have in
the LXX the sequence 5a, 6b, 5b, 6a (according to the versification of the MT).
Different explanations have been proposed. Some consider that the LXX, as
in other cases, clarifies and harmonizes a difficult Hebrew text. Others consider
that the LXX reflects an original and more ancient Hebrew text and that the MT
tried to harmonize the two conflicting versions. The second version seems to be
preferable, although the MT can claim to be the lectio difficilior.14
For this and other reasons, some commentators, such as Claus Westermann
for instance, prefer the MT, arguing that Gen 47:1–6 describes a very compli-
cated audience of Joseph and his brothers with Pharaoh.15 First, Pharaoh receives
Joseph, who introduces his family (v. 1). Then Pharaoh speaks to five of Josephʼs
brothers about their trade and the need of pasture-grounds (vv. 2–4), in a kind
of short parentheses. Verse 5 picks up where v. 1 left off, and we now have a
conversation between Pharaoh and Joseph about the fate of the latterʼs family
(vv. 5–6). This may be so, but the explanation is very complicated and does not
solve all the problems of the text. It is not clear why we have two introductions
and why Pharaoh twice offers the same solution to the same problem. Biblical
narrative style is generally more straightforward.
The main argument in favor of the originality of the LXX is that it is easier
to understand why the MT changed the order of the verses and canceled part of
the text rather than the opposite, namely, that the LXX added a sentence and
rearranged the text to make it smoother. Generally the LXX works in a different
way.
Moreover, if one supposes that the Greek translators had the MT before their
eyes, it is difficult to understand the way they managed to arrive at the Greek text
we know, especially because their version is now flawless. These translators had
to be geniuses to be able to recreate two parallel, complete, and competing ver-
sions of Jacobʼs arrival in Egypt. On many other occasions, the LXX reproduces
the difficulties of the MT or tries to harmonize conflicting versions.
It is much easier to understand the reason why the Hebrew scribes changed
the original Hebrew text and canceled an evident difficulty. The reason for their
intervention in this case is simple. Jacob arrives in Egypt with his whole family,

14
 See, for instance, the discussion in C. Westermann, Genesis 37–50 (BKAT 1/3; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 187–188, with bibliography. Westermann defends
the MT, the hebraica veritas, as original, against the LXX. For a more recent bibliography, see
Giuntoli, Officina (n. 11), 179, n. 57.
15
 See Westermann, Genesis 37–50 (see n. 14), 187–188, following W. Rudolph, “Die
Josefsgeschichte,” in Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (ed. P. Volz
and W. Rudolph; BZAW 63; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933), 165–166.

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

574 Jean Louis Ska

who will stay there for centuries. The scribes tried by all means to reconcile the
brothersʼ and Pharaohʼs proposals to make sure that in both cases they settle in
Goshen, the place mentioned in Gen 45:10; 46:28, 34, and later in the book of
Exodus. It appears in our text, in Gen 47:1, 4, 6, 27; afterwards in Gen 50:8; and
in Exod 8:18; 9:26; cf. Josh 10:41. The Priestly Writer is less precise and speaks
only of “the best part of the land.”
Rameses, instead, is probably a late addition. The name reappears only in
Exod 1:11, as a name of a city built under the pharaoh of the oppression, and as
the first stage of the journey of Israel when leaving Egypt (Exod 12:37; 33:3.5).
The purpose of the addition is probably to identify the place where the first
Israelites settle with the point of departure of the exodus a couple of centuries
later.16
The most important point is that there are evident differences between the
MT and the LXX: this means that either the copyists of the Hebrew text or the
Greek translators felt free to reorganize or to modify the text. Neither copying
nor translating is supposed to be a mechanical operation. In short, copying was
not photocopying.

4 Numbers 10:34–36: MT and LXX

This text speaks of the first stages in the wilderness after the long stay of Israel
at Mount Sinai.17 When the ark leaves the camp, Moses intones a song (v. 35),
and he intones another song when the ark stops (v. 36):
Numbers 10:35–36
And whenever the ark set out, Moses said, “Arise, YHWH, and let your enemies be
scattered, and let those who hate you flee before you.” And when it rested, he said,
“Return, YHWH, to the ten thousand thousands of Israel.”

In the MT, Num 10:35–36 are enclosed in so-called inverted nuns. The meaning
of these Masoretic signs is debated, but it is clear that ancient copyists were
aware of the problematic position of these verses. Either the text comes from
another source or it is out of place.18 The same signs exist in Greek manuscripts

16
 On this point, see Giuntoli, Officina (see n. 11), 203–208, for whom the use of Rameses
in Gen 47:11 is an anachronism.
17
 For an extensive treatment of this passage, see, among others, T. B. D ozeman , “The
Midianites in the Formation of the Book of Numbers,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers
(ed. T. Römer; BETL 215; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 261–284, here 272–275. For the problem
of sources, see the survey on p. 275; for a late date, see, among others, R. Achenbach, Die
Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von
Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 202.
18
 See, among others, B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with an Introduction
and Commentary (AB 4; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 317–318. For the possible mean-

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism 575

and are called περιγραφή, παραγραφή, or ἀντίσιγμα, i.e., inverted sigma.19 In

Greek manuscripts, these signs were intended to suggest that the text marked in
this way had to be removed because it was interpolated.
This is also what ancient Jewish commentators noticed, as is attested in Sifre
Numbers 84:
“When the ark was to set out [. . .]” There are dots above and below [this pericope] to
indicate that this was not its correct place. Rabbi says, “This is because the pericope at
hand constitutes a scroll unto itself.” [. . .] Rabbi Simeon says, “In the written version
there are dots above and below [this pericope] to indicate that this was not its correct
place.” And what ought to have been written instead of this pericope? “And the people
complained in the hearing of the Lord” (Nm 11:1ff.).20

Ancient Jewish commentaries were already aware of possible later additions to

or interpolations into biblical texts, and this quotation is an unmistakable ex-
ample of rabbinic critical sensitivity announcing what is today called redaction
criticism. As for Rabbi Simeon, the original text did not contain these verses,
and the reader had to skip from Num 10:34 to Num 11:1. Modern exegetes take
the same line and pinpoint other cases of the same phenomenon. This example
justifies the basic principle of redaction criticism, but surely not its excesses. In
this field as in others, one should remember the old Latin saying, abusus non
tollit usus, i.e., in a free translation, “the abuses of a method do not condemn the
sensible use of this method.”
There is another problem when comparing MT with LXX. The order of
verses in this text is different, and this confirms our doubts about the origin of
the song in Num 10:35–36.21 These verses are preceded, in the MT, by a short
notice about a three-day journey in the wilderness (10:33) and by another notice
in v. 34: “And the cloud of YHWH was over them by day, whenever they set out
from the camp.” In the LXX this latter verse is found after v. 36, namely after
the two songs.

ing of the inverted nuns, see S. Z. Leiman, “The Inverted nuns at Numbers 10:35–36 and the
Book of Eldad and Medad,” JBL 93 (1974), 348–355; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible (2nd ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001), 54–55. These scribal dots
were mistakenly understood as inverted nuns.
19
 For a more complete explanation, see S. L ieberman , Hellenism in Jewish Palestine:
Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century
B.C.E.–IV Century C.E. (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 18;
New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950), 38–43, quoted by T ov ,
Textual Criticism (see n. 16), 54.
20
 See J. Neusner, Sifré to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986), 80, quoted by Tov, Textual Criticism (see n. 16), 55. See also b. Shabbat
115a–116a.
21
 On this problem see, among others, Tov, Textual Criticism (see n. 16), 339, for whom
“the sequence in G*, referring to the Ark, comes immediately after v. 33, where the Ark is also
mentioned in this connection, is probably more natural.”

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

576 Jean Louis Ska

Which is the more logical or – and this is a different question – the more
original text? It seems, at first sight, that the order of verses is more logical
in the LXX than in the MT. Numbers 10:33 describes a three-day journey of
Israel in the wilderness, guided by the ark of the covenant. It is more natural
to explain immediately afterwards what happens every time the ark sets out or
comes to rest, since it is the first time the Israelites are on the move after their
long stay at Mount Sinai, and this happens according to the instructions received
previously in Num 9:15–23. Numbers 10:35–36 explains what Moses has to do
when departing and when arriving and what he did this time in connection with
the ark. The introduction of the song explicitly mentions the ark (v. 35a). The
notice about the presence of the cloud in Num 10:34 MT is less important since
it does not speak of the ark. For this reason, the order of the verses in the LXX
seems to be preferable because it is more logical.
How is the order of verses in the MT to be explained? It seems plausible to
see the connection in the use of the verb ‫נסע‬, “to move (the camp),” present
twice in 10:33 and once in 10:34. This is indeed a key word in this context.
Besides this, we find the word ‫יום‬, “day,” used in different forms in these two
verses as well.22
Be that as it may, we can draw another conclusion from this short analysis.
Most probably, the song was a well-known melody, since we find it in Ps 68:2.
The redactors of the book of Numbers found it fitting to introduce it here, in
the context of the first stage of Israelʼs journey through the wilderness after the
long stay at Mount Sinai. But the redactors of the MT and the Vorlage of the
LXX made different choices. In the MT, the stylistic links were more important,
whereas the logic of the text and its content seem to have prevailed in the Vorlage
of the LXX. Again, copyists and/or translators enjoyed a certain freedom. This is
another empirical example of slight changes between texts and a rationale for the
view that this phenomenon is neither rare nor impossible in biblical literature.
There are definitely many examples of this kind, but these are sufficient,
it seems to me, to illustrate the point that Wellhausen, whom I quoted at the
beginning of this article, wanted to drive home.23 These are empirical examples

22
 Tov , Textual Criticism (see n. 16), 339–340, mentions other examples where the se-
quence of verses or chapters is different in MT and LXX: In LXX the order of 1 Kgs 20 and 21
is reversed; Solomonʼs blessing in 1 Kgs 8:12–13, at the dedication of the temple, follows v. 53
in LXX; Jer 23:7–8 appears after v. 40 in LXX. The most conspicuous example is, of course,
the order of chapters in the central part of Jeremiah, the oracles against the nations. In the MT,
they are found in Jer 46–51, whereas they appear after chapter 25 in LXX. There are many
discussions on this topic. See a summary in G. Fischer, Jeremia: Der Stand der theologischen
Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007); P.-M. Bogaert, “De la
vetus latina à lʼhébreu pré-massorétique en passant par la plus ancienne Septante: Le livre de
Jérémie, exemple privilégié,” RTL 44 (2013), 216–243.
23
 For examples of this kind in the book of Exodus, see J. E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll
from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodM and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press,

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

 Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism 577

of the practices of scribes and copyists when dealing with sacred texts. We have
good reasons, therefore, to believe that the same phenomena can be found in the
Hebrew Bible itself.24 Moreover, again according to Wellhausen, the dividing
line between textual criticism and literary criticism is often fluid.

1986). For studies on this topic, see, among many others, A. Schenker and P. Hugo (eds.),
Lʼenfance de la Bible hébraïque: Lʼhistoire du texte de lʼAncien Testament à la lumière des
recherches récentes (MdB 52; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2005); A. Schenker (ed.), The Earliest
Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base
of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 52; Leiden: Brill,
2003); idem , Anfänge der Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Studien zu Entstehung und
Verhältnis der frühesten Textformen (BWANT 194; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011); E. Ulrich,
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Re-
lated Literature; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999); E. Tov , The Text-Critical Use of the
Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 1997); idem, The Greek and Hebrew Bible:
Collected Essays on the Septuagint (SVT 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999); idem, Scribal Practices and
Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004);
idem, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2008).
24
 For more information in this field, see the classic work by J. H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical
Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) and,
from a different perspective, the more recent work by D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the
Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: University Press, 2005).

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission

e-offprint of the author with publisher's permission