RETROVERTING 1 SAMUEL CHAPTER 3 by JAMES ROBERT ADAIR, JR Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS (Ancient Near Eastern Studies) at the University of Stellenbosch. Study Leader: Examiners: Prof. Johann Cook (Stellenbosch) Prof. F E Deist (Stellenbosch) Prof. H R van Rooy (potchefstroom) January 1993 I, the undersigned, declare that the work contained in this thesis is my own original work and has not previously in its entirety or in part been submitted to any University for a degree. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za ABSTRACT My Ph.D. dissertation proposed a four-step procedure for recovering the earliest possible text of the Old Testament: (1) detennining the lexical and grammatical characteristics of the various secondary (non-Hebrew) witnesses; (2) determining the literary and theological characteristics of the same witnesses; (3) retroverting the non-Hebrew witnesses wherever significant variants occur; (4) evaluating the Hebrew and retroverted variants and reconstructing a Hebrew Vorlage presumed to lie behind all of the extant witnesses. The dissertation itself completed the fIrst two of these steps, which a..rnount to a determination of the significant variants (i.e., those that probably point to a Hebrew reading different from M'I) of the secondary wiblesses. It is the goal of this thesis to complete the analysis and produce a critical, eclectic Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 3. Before attempting to retrovert the different secondary witnesses, a number ofproblem areas need to be addressed, including developing a methodology for retroverting versional readings that is as scientific as possible, the Hebrew script used in the Vorlagen of the various versions, and the orthography of the Vorlagen and of the reconstructed archetype. The methodology used for retroverting secondary witnesses is informed by the works of Margolis, Tov, and others, and the translation techniques of the versions as. determined in my dissertation playa large role. The methodology must be modified somewhat when analyzing the partial secondary witnesses (the Lucianic and Hexaplaric recensions of LXX). Once the secondary witnesses have been retrov~ their data is combined with that of MT, 4QSama, and a few other Hebrew witnesses and evaluated. The problems of multiple literary editions and conjectural emendations are examined, as are the merits ofexternal and internal evidence in making text-critical decisions. After each of the units ofvariation has been evaluated, the possibility that LXX represents an edition of Samuel different from MT is I Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 2considered on the basis of the evidence from chapter 3. Finally, a critical edition of the chapter, replete with critical apparatuses containing both the original and retroverted readings of the secondary witnesses, presents the fruits of the study. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za OPSOMMING In my Ph.D. proefskrif het ek vier stappe voorgestel wat as prosedure gevolg kan word om die oudste moontlike teks van die au Testament te bepaal.: (1) die vasstelling van die leksikale en grammatikale kenmerke van die onderskeie sekond~re (nie-Hebreeuse) getuies; (2) die vasstelling van die liter~re en teologiese kenmerke van dieselfde getuies; (3) die hervertaling (retrovertion) van die nie-Hebreeuse getuies waar daar betekenisvolle variante voorkom; (4) die evaluering van die Hebreeus en die hervertaa1de variante en die rekonstruksie van 'n Hebreeuse Vorlage wat aanvaar word agter aIle beskikbare getuies te l~. Die proefskrif self het die eerste twee stappe voltooi, wat neergekom het op die vasstelling van die betekenisvolle variante (d.i. die wat waarskynlik heenwys na 'n lesing wat van MT verskil) van die sekondere getuies. Dit is die doel van hierdie tesis om die analise te voltooi en om 'n kritiese, eldektiese teks van die Hebreeuse teks van 1 Samuel 3 daar te stel. Voordat ek egter poog am die verskillende sekond~re getuies te hervertaal, moet 'n aantal probleem areas eers aangespreek word. Dit sluit in die ontwerp van 'n metode om variante lesings uit die vroee vertalings so wetenskaplik moontlik te hervertaal, die Hebreeuse skriftipe wat in die onderskeie Vorlagen gebruik is, en die ortografie van die Vorlagen en van die rekonstrueerde oertipe vas te stel. Die metode wat aangele word om sekond~re getuies te hervertaal steun gedeeltelik op die navorsing van Margolis, Tov en ander. Verder speel die vertaaltegniek van die vroee vertalings wat in my proefskrif bepaal is 'n groot ro!. Die voorgestelde metode moet ietwat aangepas word wanneer die gedeeltelik sekondere getuies (die Lukiaanse en Heksaplariese resensies van die LXX) geanaliseer word. Nadat die sekondere getuies hervertaal is, word hulle data gekombineer met die van MT, 4QSama, en enkele ander Hebreeuse getuies en geevalueer. Die probleme verbonde aan meervondige literere uitgawes en hipotetiese emendasies word ondersoek, SODS ook die meriete van eksterne en interne getuienis wanneer tekskritiese beslissings gevel word. Nadat elkeen van hierdie eenhede van variasie geevalueer is, word die moontlikheid Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za ondersoek dat die LXX 'n uitgawe verteenwoordig van Samuel wat verskil van MT op grond van die getuienis van hoofstuk 3. Laastens word 'n kritiese uitgawe van hierdie hoofstuk, volledig met kritiese apparaat wat beide die oorspronklike en die hervertaalde lesings van die sekondere getuies bevat, as vrugte van hierdie studie aangebied. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za To My Daughter, Danielle Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za PREFACE Earlier this year I completed my Ph.D. dissertation at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, entitled"A Methodology for Determining the Textual Variants Which Are Relevant for Reconstructing the Original Text of the Old Testament: A Case Study of 1 Samuel 3." In that dissertation I proposed a four-step procedure for arriving at the oldest possible Hebrew text of a particular portion of scripture. After dealing with various background issues and developing the methodology to be used, ! applied the first two steps to 1 Samuel 3. The result of this endeavor was that I was able to determine those variants in the various Hebrew and versional witnesses that were significant from a text-critical point of view. The present thesis will start where the dissertation ended, taking the results of that study and applying the last two steps of the methodology to the same chapter of the Bible. The end result will be a critical, eclectic edition of 1 Samuel 3. However, the main goal of these two studies has not been to detennine which reading was preferable in one place or another, but rather to develop a methodology which could theoretically be applied to any portion of the biblical text Probably the most important aspect of the methodology is its manner of dealing with the evidence of the seoondary and partial secondary witnesses, that is, those witnesses written in a language other than Hebrew, but which made use of a Hebrew exemplar, either as a Vorlage for the entire translation or to correct a previously existing versional text in the direction of a Hebrew witness. This thesis was prepared on an Apple? Macintosh? SEI30 using Microsoft? Word 4.0, and it was printed on a Hewlett Packard DeskWriter?. In addition to fonts that came with the computer or the printer, other fonts were created to render characters in Hebrew, Greek, ii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Greek uncial, Syriac Estrangela, Syriac Serta, Aramaic,l and various special characters in English and other European languages with Altsys Fontographer? 3.3.1, run under Adobe Type Manager? 2.0. The idea for this thesis, indeed, the idea ofattempting to earn the Hons.-B.A. and M.A. degrees, is due largely to Johann Cook, my major professor at the University of Stellenbosch. I cannot forget his assistance in every imaginable area, from technical advice to scheduling seminars and exams, and not least in deciphering Afrikaans for me. I must also thank my friend and colleague Rubin for introducing me to Stellenbosch and for his help along the way. Baie dankie Johann en Rubin. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to my family: my wife Rosa, my daughter Danielle, and my parents. Without the encouragement of each one, this study would never have been possible. lThe font used for Aramaic (n'Dll'() will be different from the Hebrew font (l'r"'CU). so that it will be evident at a glance whether the word or words being discussed come from Aramaic or Hebrew sources, even when forms are similar or identical in the two languages. Hebrew. Aramaic, Synae, and Greek words will normally be given without pointing, breathing marks, accents, etc., unless necessary to distinguish similar forms. Also. all Latin words from the Vulgate will be printed in italics. iii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE INTRODUCflON Chapter 1. REfROVERSIONS OF THE SECONDARY WITNESSES Developing a Methodology for Retroverting Translations Proposed Methodologies for Retroverting Translations The Script of the Vorlagen . . . . . . . . . . Orthography. . ? . ? . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions concerning Methodology . . ? . . ? . . Retroversions of the Secondary and Partial Secondary Witnesses. . Septuagint Peshitta .. . . Targum . Vulgate . Lucianic Recension .. Hexaplaric Recension. . . . . Other Possible Hebrew Readings. . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. EVALUAnON OF lHE SIGNIFICANT VARIANTS . The Problem of Multiple Editions Conjectural Emendations Guidelines for Evaluating Variants Evaluations of the Variants . . . Conclusiom; . . . . . . . . 3. A CRITICAL EDITION OF 1 SAMUEL 3 . APPENDIX: RECONSTRUCTED ARCHEfYPICAL TEXTS OF SECONDARY AND PARTIAL SECONDARY WnNESSES SELECTED BIBUOGRAPHY tV ii 1 18 18 18 34 37 ? 42 ? 43 43 54 57 58 59 . . . 61 63 25 66 69 73 75 78 ? 115 ? 117 125 ? 131 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za INTRODUCTION My Ph.D. dissertation proposed a four-step methodology for reconstructing the earliest possible farm of the Old Testament (OT) text from the various extant witnesses to that text: (1) determining the lexical/gramrnaticaVstylistic characteristics of the witnesses; (2) detennining the literary/theological/historical characteristics of the witnesses; (3) retroversion of the witnesses; (4) evaluation of the variants and reconstruction of the presumed Hebrew Vorlage.1 This dissertation dealt only with the first two steps, using I Samuel 3 as a test base. It is the purpose of this thesis to complete the analysis of 1 Samuel 3 by retroverting the various secondary and partial secondary witnesses, evaluating the resulting Hebrew variants, and producing a critical Hebrew text based on the presumed Hebrew archetype. Before proceeding with this task, however, it is necessary to review the conclusions reached in the dissertation. First, several terms need to be defmed (see further the introduction to the dissertation). The term '"significant variant" will refer to those variants which have some probability of representing a Hebrew Vorlage different from the base text, the Masoretic Text (MT).2 The choice ofMT as the base text does not imply that it is superior to other witnesses; it is used as a 1James R. Adair, Jr., "A Methodology for Determining the Textual Variauts Which Are Relevant for RecoQStructing the Original Text of the Old Testament: A Case Study of 1 Samuel 3" (Ph.D. diss.? Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. 1992),245-46. This dissertation is cited hereafter as Adair. diss.? or simply wss. 2por the purposes of this study, MT is assumed to be equivalent to manuscript (ms) 1.. as published in Biblical Hebraica SlUltgartensia (BHS). Since significant variants are those that imply a different Hebrew Vorlage, all Hebrew variants, whether from Ma.soretic mss or from Qumran. are, by definition. significant. An exception is made in regard to medieval mss: only those IDS8 identified by M. H. Go6beo-Gottstein as baving readings that might be important in Samuel (i.e.? Kennicott mss 70.89.174, and 187) will be considered; M. H. Goshen-Gottstein,. "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition," Biblica 48 (1967): 287. Variants which are Dot significant will be termed "nonsignificant" rather than "insignificant." because of the broader connotations of the lattec term. Some of the Donsignificant vari.mts may not be insignificant in terms of understanding the meaning of the text or the historical development of the text. 1 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 2base because it is the only complete witness in Hebrew. The term "(textual) witness" refers to an extant textual tradition, either complete or incomplete, whether Hebrew or som~ other language. It may refer to an individual ms, or it may be used to represent the presumed textual tradition lying behind a group of related mss (e.g., the Septuagint [LXX] or Lucianic mss [LXXLj). In the latter case, it is equivalent to the term "text-tradition." A "(textual) variant" within a tradition is a reading that deviates from that ofanother witness within the same tradition. Thus, the readings of the base text and of a divergent witness are both considered variants} More generally, where a unit of variation exists, one may speak of a variant as either the reading ofMT or that which represents a Hebrew Vorlage different from MT. Variants that entail differences in length between various witnesses, ranging from one lexeme to many lexemes, are often called additions/omissions or plusses/minuses. However, this terminology is not satisfactory, because it implicitly gives preference to the base text, normally MT. In this study, all such variants will be tenned "add-oms."4 The terms addition/omission and plus/minus, when used, will refer to deviations from the presumed archetype, not the base text. The witnesses to the text of Samuel may be divided into three groups.s The "primary text-traditions" (or "primary witnesses") are those written in the original language, Hebrew (Le., Masoretic and Qumran rnss). The "secondary text-traditions" are those translated directly 3This definition of a variant agrees with that of F. E. Deist: cf. Ferdinand E. Deist, Witn~ses to the Old Testanuml, The Literature of the Old Testament, vol. 5 (Pretoria: NG Kerkboekhandel, 1988).203. It is slightly different from that of Emanuel Tov, who does not refer to the reading of the base text as a varil1lt: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism o/tlu! Hebrew Bibk (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), 18. 4Adapted from Vinton A. Dearing, Principles and Practice ofTextual Analysis (Berlc:eley: University of California Press. 1974),25, where "add-omissioo" is used. 5For diagrams detailing the relatioo.ships among the various witnesses, see F. E. Deist. Towards the Tex: ofthe OlJ Testament, trans. W. K. Winckler (Pretoria: N.G. Kerkboekhandel Transvaal, 1978),236; ?Ralph W. Klein. Tex:ual Criticism ofthe Old Testament: The Septuagint ajtu Qumran, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1974),71; and Sbemaryabu Talmoo. "The Old Testament Text," in Cambridge History ofthe Bibk. ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, 1: 159?99 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1970),195. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 3 from the Hebrew (i.e., LXX, Peshitta [PI, Targum Jonathan [Tl,6 Vulgate [V]). "Tertiary text-traditions" are translations of secondary text-traditions (e.g., Old Latin [it], Coptic [cop], Armenian [ann]. Ethiopic [ethl, Syrohexapla [syhD. An attempt will be made to isolate all independent witnesses to a Hebrew text For example. Lucianic witnesses, even when clearly secondary for determining the text of the Old Greek LXX (00). may be witnesses to an independent Hebrew textual tradition in places. Thus, all text-traditions which have been corrected at some point by a Hebrew text may also be considered secondary traditions at those points. Such text-traditions will be called "partial secondary witnesses." Having documented the tenninology used in this thesis, the conclusions of the dissertation can now be summarized. The single factor that most differentiates the textual criticism of the OT from that of the New Testament (Nl) is the monolithic textual character of almost all of the primary (i.e., Hebrew) witnesses to the text of the QT. Thus, the secondary witnesses playa much more important role in the texwal criticism of the OT than in that of the NT. Therefore, after analyzing different approaches to the textual criticism of the OT, it was concluded that the most appropriate methodology required a thorough investigation of the translation technique of each of the secondary witnesses (chapter 1). Scholars often characterize a particular translation as "literal," "fairly literal," "free," and so forth. While these labels may characterize certain aspects of the translation, they are not sufficiently nuanced to be of much help to the textual critic who is interested in learning how the translator rendered certain types ofconstructions. Furthermore, such labels do not adequately describe the extant versions. If a translation tends to render vocabulary items rather freely, but strictly follows the word order of its source, is it literal or free? If verb tenses are rendered consistently by grammatical equivalents in the target language, but the definiteness ofnouns is not consistently rendered, how should the translation be characterized? The answer is that a translation may be brbe abbreviation "r in this thesis is used as an abbreviation for both largums in general and for Targum Jonathan in particular. When a distinction needs to be made, Targum Jonathan will be denoted u TJ. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 4literal in rendering word order and verb tenses, fairly literal in rendering the definiteness of nouns, and free in its use of vocabulary equivalents. Therefore, a quantitative measurement of the various components of the translation technique is required to present a more complete and accurate characterization ofa version. The quantitative methods of measurement are described in chapter 1and implemented in chapters 3 and 4. Once the texts of the secondary witnesses are determined (chapter 2),7 the dissertation attempts to ascertain the relative literalness of various aspects of the translation technique of the four most important secondary witnesses (LXX, P, T, and V). Many of the suggestions of Emanuel Tov, James Barr, and others concerning the concept of literalness are incorporated into this study and expanded upon.8 In particular, each of the secondary witnesses is evaluated 7After carefully considering all the variant readings in the critical apparatuses of the various editions of LXX, P, T, and V, a presumed archetypical text was determined for each of them, which was used throughout the rest of the dissertation. No variants from the base text were deemed superior in the two versions that have critical, eclectic texts of Samuel (P and V). In the case of T, only two variants from the base text were preferred, while for LXX, twelve deviations were accepted. For a summary ofdeviations from the bae text accepted as archetypical in the dissertation and in the present thesis, sec Appendix. The editions of the secondary versions that formed the base text for the investigation are as follows: Alan England Brooke. Norman McLean. and Henry St. John Thackeray, eds.? The Old Testament in Greek (Loudon: Cambridge Univf>~"SityPress, 1906-); The Old TestcUTuml in Syriac According 10 the Peshirta Version. edited on behalfof the International Organi12tion fOl'the Study of the Old Testament by the Pesbi~ta Institute. Leiden (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1912-); Alexander Sperber. ed., The Bibk in Aramaic, 4 vols. in 5 parts (Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1959-1973); Biblia Sacra iu:cra Latina Vulgalum Vt!1'sionon ad codicem fidem ;ussu PU XII, ed. Cura et studio monachorum abbatiae pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in urh.:: ordinis Sancti Benedicti (Rome: Typis Poliglottis Vaticanus. 1926-). Oth? editions which were rousulted include Alfred Rahlfs. ed, ~ptuaginta:id at Vdus Testameruum graece iuxta LXXinterpreles, Editio Minor (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellscbaft, 1979); Robert Holmes md James Parsons, eds.,Vdus Testamentum Grtu!cum cum varUs kctionibus, 5 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1798? 1827); Henry Barclay Swete, ed., The Old Testament in Greek According to 'the ~ptuagint, 3 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1887-1912); Bonifatius Fischer et al., eds., Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam vers;onem, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Wiirttembergiscbe Bibelanstalt, 1975). For the minor Greek versions. the critical appattaIUS of the Cambridge LXX was added to the evidence ofFrederick Field. ed, Origenis Hexaplorum. 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1875; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964). For LXXL, both the Cambridge apparatus and Paul de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Tesl~nti Canonicorum, vol. 1 (GOttingen: Aedibus Dieterich, Arnold Hoyer, 1883), are consulted. LXxO is derived from the Cambridge apparatu.s. particularly mss Acx. For complete reconstructions of LXXL and LXXO, see Appendix. 8Emanuel Tov, The Tm-Critical Use oftM Septuagint in Biblical Research, Jerusalem Biblical Studies, DO. 3 (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), 5~; idem, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Fmpirical Modelsfor Biblical Criticism. ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 100-102; James Barr. The Typology ofLiteralism in /ancient Biblical Translations, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Untemehmens. no. 15 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979),26-29; Benjamin G. Wright, "The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating 'Literalism" in Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 5 in terms ofconsistency (regarding the rendering of vocabulary, word class, and grammatical categories), rendering the individual elements of compound words, word order, and quantitative representation (chapter 3). Those variants that are identified as significant are then further scrutinized by a literary and theological analysis of the translation, which eliminates a few other variants from consideration (chapter 4). Those variants that remain will fonn the basis for the examination in the present thesis. The evidence from those witnesses identified as partial secondary witnesses (LXXL, the Hexaplaric recension [LXXO), and other possible Hebrew variants [OPH]) is also evaluated in chapters 3 and 4, and significant variants in these witnesses are identified as well.9 On the basis ofa thorough analysis ofvarious aspects of each of tl.." four secondary witnesses, their respective translation techniques may be described as fl.,Jlows. lO The translators of LXX rendered their Hebrew Vorlage literally in most respects, with the exception ofHebrew articles and definiteness, which are not rendered as consistently as lexical or other grammatical categories. They show little interest in exact rendering~,ofHebrew compound words, but they are quite concerned to follow the Hebrew word I.:;:rdrer. 'they also refr~~p~d from adding or omitting quan~,tativeelements to a great exbmt. Though SOl', ~~ ?~holars have suggested that the translators of LXX had a tendency towards h&..l .: ,,' ?L~,rion and the LXX;' in l'lCongress o/the International OrganitJJlionjor Septuagint and Cog'Ulte Studies, 00. Claude E. Cox (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 312~13. See also various articles in Natalio Fern8ndez MItCOS, eel., 1A Septuaginta en la inve::tiga,,:ion Conlem]HJrnnea (V congreso de la IOSCS). Textos y estudi06 "Cardinal Cisneros" de Ia Biblia PoligJob.. Matriten;:;c:, no. 34 (Madrid: Instituto "Arias Montano" Coosejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas,1985). 9The minor Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion were also analyzed. but 00 significant variants were found in 1 Samuel 3. lOOf course, 1 Samuel 3 is a limited amount of text, and the translation tecamque6 as described here will probably need revision afteao studying a looger section, say the entire book of 1 Samuel. Only brief summaries of the translation technique., are given here. For more information, sec Adair. diss., 98-99, 111?15. 1i~, 125, 213~16, 221-22 (for LXX); 136-37, 145~, 148.156,223-24,226 (for 1:'); 162-64.112-73.177. 226-28 (for 1); 187-89, 194-96,201-2,229-32,235-36 (for V). See also the tables dealing with coosisteocy. segmentation (rendering ofcompound words), word crder, and quantitative representation in ibid.. Appendix 1. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 6 schematization,ll no evidence for such a tendency exists in 1 Samuel 3. When producing P, the translators were generally faithful to their Vorlage in most lexical and grammatical categiJries, though they did show some latitude in regard to the use of the emphatic state. They rendered about three out of four Hebrew compounds exactly, a higher percentage than in LXX but still not particularly consistent. P follows the word order of the Hebrew meticulously, but clarity in translation was appo;,uently ofgreater concern than absolute fidelity to the Vorlage in regard to Qlk1Jltit.'ttive representation, particularly where the Syriac relative particle and a11ticipatolj" priJ, :?)uns [:!re ooncerned. The translators occasionally exhibit theological (".ona...:.rns: aJso fi.:'-l~;.t'l in other translations, particularly T (e.g., the use of}J:\.C), and they see,'\ to ~;ave wanted to produce an aesthetically pleasing translation, as evidenced by the choice of similar-sounding words as translational equivalents within a short space (alliteration). T is an interesting mixture of literal and midrashic renderings. In many respects, the translators ofT12 are more literal than those of the other versions, consistently rendering both lexical and grammatical categories, rendering Hebrew compounds exactly, and following the word order of their Hebrew source(s). However. flumerous quantitative differences exist between T and its presumed Vorlage, primarily as a result of the translators' theological concerns. Included among these concerns are avoiding the i.mpression that God comes in direct contact (either visual or aural) with humans, reverence for God (often called anti.- anthropomorphisms, though this term is inadequate and imprecise), preserving the sovereignty of God, and avoiding situations that would violate the halakic traditions. Some of the literary characteristics ofT (which may also have had some theological motivations) are the consistent rendering of both m.~ and C'~by '" and the tendency to render singular words for sin by 11 Uriel Simon, "Samuel's Call to Prophecy: Form Criticism with Close Reading," Prooftats: A Journal ofJewish Literary History I (1981): 125. 12The term "translators" is used for the sake of simplicity, but it refers to any tradents. translators, scribes, or editors who played a role in the development of the text from its original oral forms in the synagogues to its final written form. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 7plurals. There is also some tendency. to prefer constructions that include the relative particle, though this use is not consistent. Concerning the translation technique of V, Jerome himself states his concern to render "with complete fidelity what stands in the Hebrew,"13 for "in scripture, even the order of the words is a mystery."14 However, that V is far from a slavish rendering can be seen by the fact that Jerome makes use of a wide range of vocabulary, particularly conjunctions. Though he follows the Hebrew word order as closely as any of the other translators, he frequently changes compound (paratactic) sentences to complex (hypotactic) ones. Jerome occasionally adds or deletes elements in order to enhance the understanding and eliminate unnecessary repetition; he is particularly free in the addition and omission ofconjunctions. Because of his concern for readability, V is probably closer to the idiom of the original readers than any other secondary witness. The one area in which his translation differs significantly from the spoken language is word order, which mirrors that of his Hebrew Vorlage. Using the translation techniques of the secondary versions alongside other text-critica1 criteria, the following variants were determined to be significant15 The variants are grouped 13Jerome, Epist~ to Sunnia and Frttela, cited in Robert Henry Pfeiffer./ntroduetion to tM Old Testament (New York: Harper & Bros., 1948), 124. 14Cited in Sebastian P. Brock, "The Phenomenon of Biblical Translation in Antiquity," in Studies in tlte Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and IlJ1erpretaJions, ed. Sidney JeUicoe, Library of Biblical Studies, cd. Harry M. Orlinsky (New York: Ktav, 1974),556. 151n order to maintain consistency with the work done in the dissertation, the significant varimls will retain their reference numbers in this thesis as well. A few changes in the significant varimts will be made: LXX variant 74 (the failure of LXX in 3:4 to render~ will be considered significant. in conjunction with variant 75 (the appearance of an extra .IaJ1oUTIA. in LXX not found in M1). The uthib readings 'lTUI (3:2) and U"1T.:1(3: 18) suggest a singular noun, which is corrected to the plural by the qere. However, it is likely that the words preserve the normal preexilic spelling of the pronominal suffix with a plural noun (the singular would have i1). Once this detail is realized. the variants relating to the rendering ofplurals rather lhm singulars are DO longer significant (LXX variant 5; P variants 5,33; T variant 7; V variants 6, 43; Masoretic variants 13,42, 43, 5 I, 52). Masoretic variants 46 and 49 in the dissertation should be coosidemd orthographic rather t1wl ~..ubstantial; in ord? to maintain consistency in numbering between the dissertation and this thesis, thel5e variants will retain their 'original numbering. The translation techniques of the partial secondary witnesses were not determined with the same degree ofdetail, though they were taken into account in considering which variants in these witnesses ace significant. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 8on the basis of which of the four major categories of variation (consistency, segmentation, word order, quantitative representatiun) they fall under. Septuamnt Consistency et~ lexeme ClvTlYYEAKa perfect perfect w/c aOt1C1.al~ . plural singular 9?ov lexeme Kat. ouo ou'troc; word division 1tpo<; lexeme Masoretic Text niphal infinitive Ref Variation Se.vtua&int 3:1 TtV OlClU'tEAAOUcro. active 3:2 ~o.puvEa9 o.t lexeme 3:5 CXVeatpE\VEv lexeme 3:6 EKaAEcrev verb 3:7 geov lexeme 3:9 o.vo.O''tpepUO] ICUplOU bOC2~ h (many read tau 1Cl>ptoU) ~lloUllA 2?] > bOC2~ 1tpoPlOC;] + En KaAECJCU 'tOY l:aJ.1.0UllA boc2~ (many) aU1:ro PTllla KUplOU] Plllla lCUplOU 1tp0C; autov bOC2~ ElC;] Kat Em boc2~; eth Hexaplaric Recension Ref Variation (from LXX) 1 3:3 Yaoo] otKOO lCUplOU Ac 2 3:8 ~OUl1A] pr ett d+ f+; (arm)17 3 3:10 Aakt] + 1Cl>ptE ex b+; arm (few) 8 3:15 1Cl>plOU] aeou ex 9 UxJ.t0u11A 2?] > ex d 16Jne procedure for dealing with the partial secondary wilnesses was somewhat different from that for the secondary witnesses proper. The variants listed as significant for these witnesses are represented as deviations from the respective base texts, and the conclusion reached in the dissertation is that these particullr variants were probably the result of corrections toward a Hebrew IDS or text-tradition that differed from MT. Alternatively, in some cases they might represent independent. parallel traditions of translation or interpretation (especially in the case ofT). Cf. Tov. Textual Criticism ofthe Hebrew Bible. 318-19. 346-47. The individual witnesses to the partial secondary tellt-traditions are listed after the reading of the text-tradition in question. sometimes followed by "(many)" or "(few)." which indicate that the readina is supported by many (more than five) or few (five or fewer) other witnesses which do not consistently support the partial secondary lext-traditioo. 17ACll reads em instead of the Etl of d+ f+, almost certainly an inner-Greek corruption rather than ? rendering of. Hebrew ,*or ,.11. Arm, along with 1>2 and itv, places the equivalent ofEt\ before the infinitive; cf. 80 Johnson. Die annenische Bibe[Ubersetzung ais hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1. Sam~lbuch, ConieclaDea Biblica, Old Testament Series, no. 2 (Lund; CWK G1eerop, 1968),86. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 13 10 3:21 'tOO truptoo] 't~u truptOU A d+; syhi eth izb (c omits phrase, x reads 6EOU) 11 K(Xt 3?1 > Acx; ann (many) Other Possible Hebrew Readin2s .&i Variation (from indicated base text) 1 3:2 110UVCl'tO] 110uvavto Nadenopqtyzb2 (LXX) 2 3:5 ~io ] + )i.:J 6hl 7h12 7k3 9alfam 911 (P) 3 3:9 D~ ] '-'~ a (T) Now that the evidence from the secondary witnesses has been presented, all evidence from the primary witnesses, namely Masoretic mss identified by Goshen-Gottstein as perhaps having some importance and 4QSama, is presented (dissertation chapter 5). The variants in these mss (which are, by definition, significant) are as followsJ8 Important Masoretic Manuscripts Orthographic Variants 1 3:2 2 3 3:3 4 3:6 5 6 3:8 7 8 3:9 9 3:11 1rJ1prJJ] 'r.ftD 89 rniC] niC 187 ~]:DW 174 rp"'] rp'I'" 174 ~ tmp 174 rp"] rp1'" 174 nzr~ rnJ'E 70 89 174 187 ''''pr.IJ] 'q?O:189 iO"~ iTJ"':':Q"T 70 18For differences from the dissertation, see above, n. 15. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 14 10 3:13 t.ml~ 174 11 3:17 'T0'''1 'TO" 174 12 3:2/ ~'] rpt"'70 46 ~ i'I7v.o 174 187 49 '~'~70 Substantial Variants 13 3:2 U"lTl] ,"r11l89 174 14 '?niT) > 89 15 N?] N?1187 16 ~"] 1'7.:n" 187 17 rn~J rnN'1? nliC 70 18 3:3 C'~ 2?] O'~89 19 3:5 "rn\IP.I mg + "J:l 70 20 "rmpj + ." 187 21 3:6 ~ 1?] + "JJil-nf' 70 22 ~rJD t+"'] > 89 187 23 ?mrJZ72?] > 174 24 -0.\"'1 2?]~ 70 25 "J:JI > 70 26 ~ + :::t:IZ1, .".., 70 27 verse 6 fin] + whole verse (repeated) 70 28 3:8 ~1] + ~rJD 174 29 K1' 1?] + jUJ 70 30 3:9 ?man] ?maJ ~ 70 31 3:14 rT':tJ] > 89 32 3:15 ip:rI] > 70 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 15 33 I'm2?1> 187 34 l'm2?] '*89 35 3:16 em] ~89 174 36 3:17 -o-t "'1Dtq > 70 37 "Tl:I1 ~] m -rn:n 187 38 ~~rJ'J "TT:I'T t:N ~Cl" iC1 C'~" ilmr~ > 70 39 i:m) O"i:liil 187 40 3:18 C'1:liiT] +~ 174 41 ~i1I > 174 42 lJ"~ ,"r1T.J 174 43 U".uJ) ~rJJ:189 44 3:20 miT'] i11iT rT::J 174 45 3:21 i1K 'I'] + mJO ~ 70 47 ,'::ur.l~~ iThi" ii?JJ] > 187 48 1?1J:l] > 89 50 i::J-,:JJ -r.rr.:J i:n::J 89 KethilcQere Ortlwgraphic Variants 51 3:2 1J"mK] '''J~.tnQ 52 3:18 U"111 K] '~?m Q TIfUlUne Soobm.!!J. Substantial Variants 53 3:13 C1?] C'~tiq soph Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 16 4QSama19 Onhographic Varianrs 1 3:18 ':JJ "~4QSama Substantial Variants 2 3 3:3 3:4 C'i'1?N T1'~ CZJ~ il1iT'] > 4QSamavid20 ';:ltq > 4QSama21 19nte readings of 4QSama are based on the folJowing reconstrnclion of the text of 1 Samuel 3: Fragmeotl: Fragment 2: it]1iT "1:>~1 (3:1) ");m KIm 011'.: (3:2) J~1 ml'{~ (3:2-3) ~JCD i"(liT' (3:4) J f:{ "Ji:rT.1 c",:J (3:18) ?]~r1 i1ZJ.tr (3:18-19) )bTt~ (3:19-20) iiiiT'J" [K':l:11; (3:20) The photograph of Ibis ms was provided by the Ancient B~blical Manuscript Center and is courtesy of the hnel Antiquities Authority; Israel Antiquities Authority, "PAM 41.766," photo~(Claremont: Ancient Biblical ManlJ&..npt Center. 1992). Official publication of the scroll will be in Frmk Moore Cross and Eu,ene Charles Ulrich, eds., Discoverie.t in the Judaean ~sm ofJordan, vol. 11 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, forthcoming). 20Eugene Ulrich notes that the scribe of 4QSam' wrote about fifty letters per line, at least in this part of the scroll; Eugene Charles Ulrich, Jr.? 1M Qumran Text ofSamuel and JOSl!phus, Harvud Semitic Monographs. DO. 19 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1978),63. Though Kyle McCarter does not say so specifically, this letter count setlDlJ to be behind his suggestion that the scroll omits five words found in MT; P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.? 1 Samuel. The Anchor Bible, ed. William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 8 (Gardea City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1980),95. If so, it would agree with LXX in omittin, "Yahweh." but it would be alone in omitting the other words. Though space coosideI'atioos do not force Ibis euct appraisal. the readings ofboth i1 and mite certain. Thus, it il!i clear that the st..roll is different from MT at this point. and it is probable that it is about twenty letters shorter. 21 Both Ulrich. tentatively, and McCarter, without qualification, suggest another variant. namely. that 4QSama agrees with LXX in adding a second "Samuel"; Ulrich, Qumran TeAt ofSam~l.63; McCarter. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 17 The results of my Ph.D. dissertation have been summarized in this introduction, and the significant variants that have been listed will be the primary ones that will be considered in the remainder of this thesis (readings not considered significant in one witness that are considered significant in another will also be noted, though they will not receive as much weight). The chapters that follow will complete the four-step process described above (p. 1). After a discussion of methodology, chapter 1will attempt to retrover1, in whole or in part, the secondary and partial secondary witnesses into Hebrew. Chapte.2 will take all the Hebrew readings (both originally Hebrew and retrovn1ed readings) that have been determined to be significant, evaluate them, and attempt to arrive at a conclusion concerning the "original" reading. Finally, chapter 3 will present the results of the study in the form of a critical Hebrew text of 1Samuel 3, including critical apparatuses. I Samuel, 95. 1b.is suggestion, how~ver p!:-,usible, is not directly supported by the fragment. since no trace of the second ~appears, but is based on the omission of ~(variant3). In light of the fact that MT also omits ~in verse 8 (cf. v. 6), a second "Samuel" is not an assured reading and remains a conjecture. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za CIIAPTI~R 1 RETROVERSIONS OF TIlE SECONDARY WITNESSES It is commonplace in critical apparatuses to cite the testimony of secondary and even tertiary versions, and ample justification for presenting the readings in their original language exists. However, before any comparison between the Hebrew and non-Hebrew witnesses is possible, the latter must be retroverted into Hebrew, at least implicitly. Retroversion into Hebrew will be done explicitly in this chapter, not only to demonstrate the methodology, but also because retroversion of a versional reading forces the scholar to deal more directly with the purported development of the text. Many versional readings that appear to presuppose a different Hebrew Vorlage turn out to be inconclusive, or even support MT, when one is forced to propose a Hebrew text underlying the version. Developin~ a Methodolo~y for Retrovertin2 Translations Though many commentators and editors of both critical and diplomatic texts present readings that are retroversions from translations, few have proposed a methodology for doing retraversions. As a result, many retroverted readings remain questionable, and even retroversions that are probably correct suffer from an insufficient theoretical foundation. A few scholars, however, beginning with Max Margolis, have proposed guidelines for those who would attempt to recover the Vorlage behind the present, translated reading. Proposed Methodoloiies for Retrovertini Translations Max Margolis In a 1910 article. Max Margolis discusses the possibility of ret. aversion from Greek to 18 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 19 Hebrew by means of a process whic~ he calls "complete induction." 1 He begins with a discussion of Paul de Lagarde's first canon, which states that in order to arrive at the Hebrew reading lying behind the Greek, one must first have a knowledge of the style of the individual translators.2 As a corollary of this principle, one must also determine the Iimits of the unit of translation, that is, the material rendered by the same translator} Not only must one know the style of the translators, Margolis says, but one must also be familiar with the style of the individual Hebrew writers.4 As a preface to discussing several examples, Margolis lays down one more proposed principle: "In order, however, to discover the total sum ofcriteria, the student must obvitlusly collect his data from the whole of the Greek Old Testament, whereupon he may proceed to di~tribute them among the various groups of translators thus brought to light"S He proceeds to list several examples in which a Hebrew coordinate clause is rendered by a Greek subordinate clause (e.g., Oen 3:6; 4:1; Num 21:16; Deut23:13; 1 Kgs 14:18), where plural and generic singulars are interchanged (Oen 4:20; Neh 12:44; Prov 11: 10; Sir 4: 12), and where finite verbs and participles are interchanged (Exod 20:2; Ruth 4: 15; 1 Esdr 5:69).6 Margolis's goal is to replace uninf.:mTled conjectures with substantiated lexical and 1Max Margolis, "Complete Induction for the Identification of the Vocabulary in thn. Greek Versions of the Old Testament with Its Semitic Equivalents: Its Necessity and the Means of Obtaining It," Journal O/IM American Oriental Society 30 (1910): 301-12. Although he acknowledges the importance of retroverted readings, be is not particularly optimistic that convincing retroversioDS are obtainable. except in those cases in which "the translator has mi!>Tead or misinterpreted the original" (p. 303). Cf. his comment on pp. 302-3: "As a matter of fact. in passages wanting in the Hebrew, all attempts at retroversion are unscientific." 2Ibid.? 301. Cf. also p. 302: "After an elimination of the irrational element of chance cOl111ptions or of the disfiguring element of cunscious alteration ... ,there remains the stupendous task of retroversion for which indeed a knowledge of the style ofeach individual translator is an all-imporblnt prerequisite." 3Ibid.? 304. 4Ihid.,303. Thus. a knowledge of literary criticism is essential. Margolis gives an example based on diffl:J"eot Peotateucbal sources. SIhid., 304; italics his. 6Ibid.? 305. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 20 grammatical equivalents, some of which defy intuition. Searching the biblical text for data to inform textual decisions in unquestionably important. However, some doubt must attach itself to Margolis's contention that his examples are "certain." For example, he cites lsa 40:6, where oo~a. is formally equivalent to '"'D1, and uses this equivalence to support the legitimacy of (XVoPoo; ?voo~ou<; as a rendering of "'D"l1!Il~in Sir 44: 1. However, since oo~a corresponds to "'Ol only once out of more than 250 occurrences of oo~a,Winton Thomas's suggestion in BHS that oo~a in lsa 40:6 might reflect a form of 1TT must be accorded at least equal consideration, especially in light of the fact that oo~a renders "'eleven times in the OT, including four times in Isaiah. If 1TTis original in Isa 40:6, then the supposed equivalent in Sir 44: 1 has no support. In addition to this line of argument, one must also recall that LXX Isaiah is a free translation, so one formal equivalent implies very little. Despite this questionable example, most of Margolis's examples of his method do seem probable (and they usually have a wider basis of support). Nevertheless, his contention that the student must collect his data from the whole Greek OT, though it may seem obvious, is not always valid. Though data from other parts of the OT is frequently helpful, more weight should be placed on his previous suggestion that the translation technique o/thatparticuwr unit o/translation be deiennined. After demonstrating his method ofcomplete induction for recovering the Hebrew Vorlage behind a LXX reading, Margolis turns to show how the method can also be used to recognize inner-Greek corruptions. He suggests that the reading 'tou 11Jl also renders the verb W Thus, the presumed Vorlage of the LXX reading is OUJ",; one of the two Hebrew readings probably developed from the other by metathesis.l4 The search for vocabulary equivalences need not be limited to the exact Greek word in question, for some presumed equivalents are based on related Greek words (e.g., compounds) or on words with similar meanings.t5 The textual critic's intuition cannot be emphasized too strongly, according to Tov. for the word on which a Greek reading is based may not ever be translated with that particular Greek word (or a related word), and it may not even occur elsewhere in LXX. For example. l"'"IPin Jer 2: 16 MT is formally equivalent to KCX'tE1tCXl.~OV in LXX, but the meaning is different. Despite the lack of attestation in LXX. Tov suggests that the LXX reading goes back to a Hebrew reading l"l". which is semantically similar to KCXtE1ta.l~OV and graphically similar to 1j71j?16 Intuition is an invaluable tool, but it remains subjective, and it will sometimes happen that the Vorlage behind a Greek reading is indetenninate. This problem will be discussed below. Tov's third guideline states that retroversions should be probable from a textual point of view. Tov lists the interchange of graphically similar letters and metathesis as common scribal phenomena.!7 Elsewhere, he lists factors such as parablepsis. dittography, phonetic similarity, differences in word division, and various intentional changes.ls For example, the suggested retroversion of a Greek reading should follow the orthography used at the time that the translation was made (see below, pp. 37-41). Furthermore, the textual critic must 14Tov, Text-Critical Use. 103. 16Ibid., 116-17. 15Ihid.? 106-7. 17Ihid.? t20. 181dem, Textual Criticism Of the Hebrew Bible. 236-84. See also P. Kyle McCarter. Jr.. TeXlual Criticism: Recovering the Text o/tlle Hebrew Bible, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986).26-61, and Michael Fishbane. Biblic:allnlerpretQtioll in Itllcienllsrael (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985),23-88. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 24 remember that a retroversion is based not only on the meaning of the Greek text, but also on t~~e graphic form of the Hebrew text. Thus, AUl(Oc; ewe; troy oucrrov should not be retroverted as crn:n il1 ~, but rather as rT'~ il1 ~, which is graphically closer to rn~ :i'a of MT,19 The plausibility of the retroverted reading in terms of grammar, vocabulary, and style reminds the textual critic that most convincing retroversions will usually fit the context of the passage and the stylistic characteristics of the book (or section) in question. However, it is entirely possible that the Hebrew Vorlage behind some Greek readings was anomalous. An unusual grammatical form, for example, may reflect a legitimate archaic or dialectical survival in the text, which was changed at some point in the proto-Masoretic tradition. On the other hand, an anomalous reading may simply be an error that crept into the text. However, Tov stresses that "'the correctness ofa given retroversion should never be confused with its originality within the history ofthe biblical text."20 In other words, retroversion is a different step entirely from evaluation. In a further comment on linguistic plausibility, Tov reminds the textual critic that "retroversions should follow the grammar and lexical understanding of the translator rather than the modem scholar's understanding of Hebrew philology."21 For example, the LXX reading ?V J.ll:crO) ma~ 6avatou for MT's rnrm ~~~ in Ps 23(22):4 probably reflects the translator's understanding of ~j~asequivalent to the Aramaic ~1J:l, "in the midst" (cf. also Jer 49: 19[29:20?.22 Finally, some retroversions of LXX have external support from other ancient versions, Qumran ross, and scriptural citations or allusions in other ancient sources (e.g., Josephus, extracanonical books. the Talmud, etc.). Caution must be exercised, however, when one claims that a reading in one version supports that in another, for some parallel readings developed independently of one another. For example, the agreement between LXX and the 19Tov, Te:A:t-Critical Use, 121-22. 21 Ibid.? 125. 20Ibid.? 124 (italics his). 22lbid. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 25 Samaritan Pentateuch in saying that God completed his work of creation on the sixth day, rather than the seventh in MT, may be the result of independent contextual harmonization.23 The textual critic must be especially careful when using data from medieval Hebrew mss to support a reading in LXX, for the history of the development of the Masoretic mss makes it unlikely that such agreements are genetically related Only in the cases ofa few specific mss may there be exceptions to this generalization.24 Tov's guidelines for retroyerting the text go well beyond those of Margolis, yet Toy reminds the textual critic of the subjective nature of most retroversions: "'No retroversion-with the exception of some personal names-is beyond doubt, but some retroversions are more reliable than others."25 Some reliable types of retroversions include those supported by scribal errors in Hebrew, those supported by Hebraisms in LXX, and retroyersions of variants which are preferable to the readings of MT.26 Types of retroversions which are less reliable, or even doubtful, include retroversions of words or phrases in non-literal translation units, retroversions of difficult words (especially hapax legomena), additions and omissions of personal names for the sake of clarity, mechanical disturbances of the text (e.g., haplography, dittography, or parablepsis) which could have occurred in either Greek or Hebrew, and harmonizations.27 Tov's discussion ofretrv? I.'rsions is helpful and illuminating. Nevertheless, some questions remain. For instance, Tov's numerous examples deal almost exclusively with what he calls "'content words." He says that the reconstruction of "grammatical words," that is, 23Ibid., 128. 24Jbid., 130-31. See also Goshen-Gottstein, "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts," 276-84. 25Tov, Tut-Critical Use, 131. 26Ihid., 131-35. Of course, retroversions which produce readings preferable to MT cannot be identified until the evaluation stage. 27rbid., 137-39. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 26 prepositions. particles, and conjunctions, and all grammatical categories must be considered less reliable than that of content words.18 However, though this statement may be accurate to a greater or lesser extent, he makes no effort here to test it. An examination of '"grammatical words" and grammatical categories in 1 Samuel 3 lends some support to his position. yet contradicts it in other ways. For example, the deviation factor29 of Greek verbs. nouns, and adjectives (Le., "content words") in the chapter, 0.33, is less than the deviation factor of Greek adverbs, prepositions, and particles (included in Ttlv's "grammatical words'"). 1.27, thus indicating a greater degree of freedom in rendering adverbs, prepositions, and particles. and. by implication, a lesser likelihood of determining the exact Hebrew reading of the Vorlage. However, the deviation factor of the Greek conjunctions (also included among "grammatical words") is 0.00, so it appears that the translators were in fact concerned to render conjunctions exactly, and therefore the Hebrew conjunctions lying behind the Greek conjunctions c.an be determined with precision, assuming that the pattern holds up in other chapters. Concerning grammatical categories, the tables in Appendix I, as corrected on p. 114 of the dissertation. indicate that in many cases the deviation factors for the renderings ofcertain grammatical categories are comparable to, or even less than, that for the rendering of "content words" (i.e., rendering nf Hebrew verbs by Greek tense and mood [excluding verbalsl: 0.43; rendering of Hebrew stem by Greek voice: 0.30; rendering of person in verbs: 0.00; rendering of number in verbs: 0.12; rendering of the use of Hebrew substantives by Greek case: 0.37 [when grouped as described on p. 1131; rendering of number in pronouns: 0.00; rendering of the use of Hebrew pronouns by Greek case: 0.06 [when grouped as described on p. 1131)}0 It seems, 28rhid., Ill. 19The deviation factor is a numerical n::presentation of the deviation from absolute consistency-i.e.? one-to-one co~respondenc~inrendering, with a deviation factor of Zt:I'O indicating absolute consistency. 1be deviation f~ctor is a number that is u~ful primarily in comparison with tne deviation factors of olher e1emm15 in the same version or of similar elements in another version. For a detailed discu.~..;on of lhe deviation factor and the algorithm used in detennining it,~ Adair, diss., 292-95 (A~dix 2). 3?Each version. of course, must be enmined separatdy. Thus. P rendt't'S Mcont~nt words~ and Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 27 then. that "grammatical words" and grammatical categories may at times be rendered with precision. When they are, they are candidates for retroversion alongside "content words." In his discussion of the support of variants among external sources, Tov, speaking of independently arising parallel 'dements in various witnesses, suggests that the correction of grammatk..al inconsistencies in the witnesses is relatively common, and such coniXtions should not be viewed as genetically related.3l Because he does not elaborate extensively on this suggestion, various questions arise: How exactly is grammatical inconsistency to be defined? Does it only refer to lack of agreement between subject and verb, as is sometimes the case with collective nouns? How widespread is grammatical inconsistency in the or or in particular books? Under what circumstances should clearly anomalous forms be corrected? The answers to these questions are not straightforward, but more complete answers would lead La more accurate retroversions. Finally, a couple of other points raised by Tov's discussion may be mentioned. First, Tov says that retroversions which are supported by Hebraisms in LXX are a type of reliable retroversion. Although this statement seems reasonable, can it be supported that translators never introduced syntactical Hebraisms which were not called for by their Vorlage?32 Second, he men'Jons both the addition and the omission of proper names for the sake ofclarity as types of retroversions that are not reliable. While many examples of the addition of names, conjunctions, as well as most grammatica! aspects of verbs and pronouns. with great nrecision; p's rendering of adverbs, prepositions. and particles is freer than that of LXX, with a deviation factor of 3.41 (diss., 263-71. 145? 46). T overall is somewhat more consistent in its renderings than P (pp.272-80, 172). V in many respects is the least consistent lexically, with deviation factors of2.13 for "content words"; 5.41 for adverbs, prepositions. and particles; and 30.98 (!) for conjunctions; it is thus the only version of the four that makes no attempt to render conjunctions con~istently. On the Gtber hand, its renderings ofverbs and pronOWls are quite precise in most re~pects (pp. 282-91. 194). 31Tov, ;':at-Critical Use. 129. 32The analogy of the go~-pel of Luke may be instructive here. After the prnlogue (Lk 1:14). which is written in a Greek that appooaches .:lassical style, the remainder of the gospt!l is written in A kind of "Semitic Greek," perhaps based Oil the style of LXX, though no (complete) Hebrew or Aramaic composition ties behind it. cr. H. F. D. Sparks, "The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel." lournal of 17leological Srudies. o.s., 44 (1943): 129-38. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 28 pronouns, and other elements to a text to enhance its specificity exist, can the same be said for the omission of names?33 These are questions which warrant investigation. John R. Miles John R. Miles's revised doctoral dissertation is c4 ".foted to the study of retroversion from one language to another,34 Though he uses retroversion from Ethiopic into Greek as his example. his methodology is equally applicable to other versions and their daughter translations. He seeks a more scientific approach to retroversion, one based less on the textual critic's intuition and more on reliable data. Our concern is rother with "retroversion" as a more general problem in critical method. Briefly, we submit that if the modem critic can get from translation to original, it can only be because he knows how a given ancient tmnslator got from original to translation; and that since this knowlecige can only be acquired when both the original and the tronslation are available for study, his ability to "retrovert" results less from insight into the tmnslation he is considering, presumably one for which the original is lost, than it results from insight transferred from his work on other translations for which the originals were available.35 To obtain data about a particular version's translation technique, he suggests building a "syntacticon," which compares syntactic structures in the source language to that in the target language.36 In his first chapter, he builds this "syntacticon" inductively, constructing it from a comparison of the Greek and the Ethiopic in Esther 1-8. He acknowledges some of the difficulties inherent in his method, for example, the assumption that the particular Greek and Ethiopic texts he 3.nalyzes are actually related to one another as source and translation, when in 33Though it requires further substantiation in a wider context. it seems probable that Jerome omitted proper names, pronouns, and other elements that he felt wert> redundant in th~ context (e.g.? "'.u in 3:9 and the pronominal suffix 1 in 3: II; cf. also the substitution of eius for "'.uin 3:14. apparently to avoid redundancy); see Adair. diss., 234. No tendtncy to omit elements for stylistic reasons was discerned in any of the other versions in I Samuel 3. 34JoOO Russiano Miles, Retrm'ers;on and Text Criticism: TI'e Predictability ofSyntax in an Ancient Translationjrom Greek to Ethiopic. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies. no. 11 (Chico. CA: Scholars Pr~s. 1985). 3Slbid.,5. 36Ihid.? I. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 29 fact they are not. Nevertheless, he believes that these problems do not significantly alter the outcome of his study. He also notes that his choice of a fairly literal unit of translation enhances his probability of successful retroversion.37 His "syntacticon" is based on the translation patterns not of individual words or grammatical structures but of groups of words that are related syntactically in the sentence. Specifically, he groups his examples according to what he sees as patterns of subordination: verb-ta-verb subordination, verb-ta-substantive subordination, substantive-to-substantive subordination, and so forth. He mentions briefly coordination of sentences and, more extensively, formulaic language. He describes formulaic language as follows: "Within the translation language, given forms ofexpression can be bound to given language situations in such a way that when the translator comes upon the situation in the original language, the form of his translation will be determined immediately and without reference to the form of the original."38 For example, Ethiopic dates are often rendered according to a set form, regardless of the exact reading of LXX. Once his "syntacticon" is developed, he first tests its accuracy and usefulness by applying it to the Greek text of Esther 9 and comparing the results with the Ethiopic text. He begins with an exercise in translation rather than retroversion because the initial form ofhis "syntaeticon" is a function that operates on Greek readings and produces Ethiopic readings. In addition, he says, it is more logical to go from Greek to Ethiopic fIrSt because that is the historical direction of the translation process. "Retroversion is not a matt.er ofrelating the translation to the origbal, it is a matter of recovering and reversing the relationship which the original once had to the translation."'3g For example, in his analysis of Esth 9: 17, he finds five syntactical structures in the Greek text that are reflected in his "'syntacticon." Comparing the tr'i:lnslational guidelines he has gleaned from chapters 1-8 with the extant Ethiopic text. he finds 37Ibid.,6. 38rhid., 69. 39Ihid., 130-31. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 30 that the guidelines have been followed three times out of the fIve possibilities.oW Overall, he discovers that the Ethiopic text conforms to his predicted results in 70% of the cases.41 He suggests a number of improvements to his initial "syntacticon," and the result is a complex system of logic tables and decision paths that he admits seem to require a computer to analyze.42 Having demonstrated the use of his "syntacticon" as a tool for predicting the Ethiopic text when confronted with the Greek, he next takes the Ethiopic text of Esther 10 and attempts to determine the Greek text behind it. In order to accomplish this retroversion, it is necessary for him frrst to invert his tables so that one can begin with Ethiopic rather than Greek. After doing so, he uses the transformed tables to predict the retroverted Greek text He finds that his tables produce the actual Greek text in 88% of the cases for which a syntactic entry exists. After applying his method to 1 Esdras 3 (Greek to Ethiopic) and 4 Baruch 1 (Ethiopic to Greek), he concludes, "the mechanical prediction of translation syntax and the recovery from translation of original syntax would seem on the basis of our study to be possible."43 Miles's study of the predictability of retroversion is interesting and informative. His work demonstrates the necessity of using hard data, rather than pure intuition, when discussing translation technique and when attempting retroversion. Nevertheless, a number of questions arise from his study. The first concerns his assumption that determining the rules of translation from source to target language guarantees that the process may be inverted, going from target to source language.44 In fact, the possibility of mechanical retroversion does not logically follow from a determination of rules for tranSlation, since more than one syntactical structure in the source language may be resolved into a single structure in the target language.45 40lbid., 140. 43lbid., 200. 41 Ibid., 149. 44Ibid.? 2. 42Ihid., 155. 451n mathematical tenns, ifhis "syntacticon" describes a function',' ..?.~)lre domain is the source language and whose range is the target language, that function may not be invertible because a one-tO-{lDe cO~1JOOdence between discrete structures in the two languages may not exist. He discusses th~ difficulties that arise from Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 31 More significant is the question of the structure of his "syntacticon." Not all syntactic relationships in ~ sentence can be described in terms of subordination, and the mapping of syntactical structures rather than the grammatical charncteristics of individual words (i.e., case, gender, number, tense. etc.) begs the question of translation technique. It may be that the Ethiopic translators (or any other translators) looked beyond individual words at groups of words when translating, but it must be shown that they did so.46 If it can be demonstrated that the translators of a particular unit of translation primarily trciI1Slated word by word, rather than phrase by phrase, the need for a "syntacticon" such as Miles describes disappears. On the other hand, if the translators show a propensity for translating certain syntactic constructions in a way that violates their normal word by word technique, a more limited. "syntacticon" may be helpfu1.47 Noticeably lacking in Miles's discussion of retroversion is any discussion oflexica1 choice. It is true that his main focus is on the predictability of syntax; nevertheless, since retroversion does require that lexical choices be made, some briefdiscussion of the subject would be helpful (cf. his discussion on word order, pp. 153-54). Also, his discussion of "omission, mistranslation, paraphrase, and unpredictable translation" (pp. 81-84) does not adequately address the problem of what the textual critic should do when confronted with such material. He says that no one can predict "what does not happen when an accurate mechanical translation is not made...."48 However, if one can demonstrate that omission is caused multiple references in the reversed {better: inverted) tables (pp. 158-59), but he does not adequately address what is a potentially complex problem. 46Cf. the criticism of Anneli Aejmelaeus, review of Retroversion and Ten Criticism: The Predictability ofSyntax in an Ancient Translationfrom Greek to Ethiopic, by John Russiano Miles, 71leologische Literaturzeitung 111 (1986), col. 343: "Est ist kaum sinnvoll, syntaktische Erscheinuogt.'Il nacb den Wortklassen zu klassifizieren. die je miteinander verbunden uod einander subordiniert erscbeinen, niimlicb Verb zu Verb, Verb zu Substantiv, Substantiv zu Suhstantiv u~w." 47Thus, Aejmelaeus suggests a map of the translations of various prepositional phrases; ibid. 48Miles. Retroversion, 83. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 32 by parablepsis, for example, one can predict at least certain aspects of the Vorlage. Moreover, both Margolis andTov point out that certain mistranslations do point to specific readings in the Vorlage, especially if the word apparently read is graphically similar to the presumed original. In conclusion, Miles's methodology for retroverting a translation by using tables that map the correspondence of syntactic structures in the source and target languages supports the need to have hard data before deciding upon a particular retroverted reading. However, it may be doubted whether retroversion can really be as mechanical as he claims, especially in the light of varied renderings of identical or similar syntactic structures.49 Furthennore, he has not demonstrated that such a complex approach to translation, operating on the level of syntactic structures rather than on the level of individual words, is reflected in the Ethiopic translation, much less in the translations used in this thesis. Thus, his method has limited application in the present study. Other Suggestions In addition to these more extensive studies of retroversion, shorter observations on various aspects of retroversion have been made. Isac Leo Seeligmann, in an article discussing contemporary Septtlagi~t research, discusses the relationship between the Hebrew and Greek texts of the QT. He stresses the importanc~ of first establishing the text of LXX itself and of determining the translation technique of the particular book in question.50 In agreement with Margolis and Tov, he observes that Hebraisms and errors in translation often allow the ---------- ---- 49Cf. the comment of Aejmelaeus. review, col. 344: "Davon ist die Rez. [i.e., Aejmelaeusl jedoch immer starker iiberzeugt. daB iibersetzungsteclmische Studien und Riickiibersetzung nicht mechanisch nach gegebenen Regeln zu betfelben sind." In another context, F. E. Deist says, ?'[these characteristics of PI sound a wa....ning to the retroverter not to go about his work in a mechanical way, but to take the character of the whole into accOlmt so as to make wise decisions on whether a particular reading does in fact constitute a variant reading or not"'; Deist, Witnesses. 179. 50rsac Leo Seeligmann. "Problemen en perspectieven in het moderne Septuaginta-onderzoek,'" Jaarbericht ex oriente [we 7 (1940). 382. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 33 reconstruction of the original reading.51 Finally, Seeligmann says that the correspondence ofa LXX variant with another unrelated witness suggests a variant Hebrew Vorlage.52 [ftrue, this observation is applicable not only insofar as it identifies a variant to be retroverted, but it also needs to be considered at the stage of evaluation and when creating the critical apparatus (see below, p. 76). F. E. Deist does not deal with retroversion in a systematic way, but he does offer several tips on retroversions for the various versions. He bases his remarks on retroverting LXX on Tov's Text-Critical Use l?.fthe Septuagint, so that information will not be repeated. For T, Deist says, one must bear in mind that the translators produced targums for liturgical purposes, sometimes adapting their text to fit the liturgical circumstance;53 different targums utilize different translation techniques; and targums frequently make use ofvarious types of interpretation imbedded in the text: peshat, halakah, midrash, and haggadah.54 Speaking of P, Deist points out that the translators frequently translate Hebrew synonyms with a single Syriac word, though occasionally the reverse occurs; they often concretize Hebrew metaphors; they sometimes vocalize or divide words differently than MT; they render difficult Hebrew words inconsistently; and they sometimes translate proper names.55 When attempting to retrovert a reading in V, one must be aware of Jerome's stylistIC tendencies (e.g., preference for "eloquent" or vivid readings and a somewhat negative attitude toward women and childbearing) and his occasional use of different vocalization, word division, or sentence division.56 Before detailing the conclusions about retroversion that have been garnered from the 51 Ibid.? 377; cr. also p. 382. This assertion has boon noted and discussed briefly above (p. 27). 51Ibid.? 383. 53Cf. the discussion of Christian lectionaries, which were also used for liturgical purposes; Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text oJthe New Te.\'tament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. 1987; Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1987), 166. 54Deist. Wil1lesses, 133. 55Ibid.? 178-79. 561biu" 189-91. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 34 preceding discussion and from work with the text itself, two other related matters require some discussion, namely, the script of the Vorlagen of the various Samuel translations and the question of the orthography of the reconstructed texts and of Hebrew ross no longer extant. The Script of the Vorlagen Although it is often assumed that the Vorlagen of the secondary versions of Samuel were written in the later square script, this assumption needs further discussion and demonstration, particularly in the case of LXX, Rabbinic tradition says that Ezra and the other returnees from Babylonia introduced the square ("Assyrian") script into Palestine in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E. (b. Sanh. 21 b-22a; j. Meg. 1.9, etc.), whereupon it replaced the Old Hebrew script then in use. However, evidence f. -:lm Qumran, coupled with evidence already known (script of the Samaritan Pentateuch, numismatic evidence from the Hasmonean and Herodian periods, revival of the older script during the time of Bar Kokhba), necessitates a new look at the issue. Shemaryahu Talman concludes on the basis of all the data, especially the existence of several scrolls from Qumran written in the Old Hebrew script, that "the ancient Hebrew script retained a lease on life until after the destruction of the Second Temple and the cessation of Jewish political sovereignty,"S7 Qumran data demonstrates that the Old Hebrew script was sometimes used for transmitting biblical material in the late Second Temple period. Most of the mss in Old Hebrew script are from the Pentateuch; however, one Old Hebrew ms ofJob does exist (4QpaleoJobC).58 It is probable that Samuel was composed, and subsequently transmitted, in 57Shemaryahu Talmon. "The Ancient Hebrew Alphabet and Biblical Text Criticism," in Melanges bihliques et orientaux en I'}lOnlZeur de M. Mathias Delt:or. ed. A. Coquot. S. Ugasse, and M. Tardieu. Alter Orient und AIles TC!>'iament, no. 215 (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1985; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985). 391. See his discussion of examples of the alternation of ? and ~ in the Old Hebrew script. ibid., 393-401, and of the alternation of ~andn idem, "The Ancient Hebrew Alphabet and Biblical Text Criticism." in MeIaflges Domiflique Barthelemy: Etudes biblique.r offertes a J'occasion de son 61' afl1liversaire. ed. Pierre Ca.<;setti. Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 38 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1981; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & kuprecht. 1981),504-22. 58Tov also mentions 4QpaleoJoshpara, containing parts uf Joshua 21; Tov, Textunl Criticism. 105. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 35 the Old Hebrew script.59 However, S. R. Driver concludes that the Vorlagen used by the translators of most of the books in LXX (presumably including Samuel) were written in an carHer form of the square script.60 In order to demonstrate that the Vorlage of Samuel was written in Old Hebrew, it would not be sufficient to point to evidence ofconfusion that can occur only in Old Hebrew, since this confusion could have occurred during the process of trallsmission of the Hebrew text that led to the Vorlage. Instead, it would be necessary to show that errors resulting from graphic similarity which only exist in the square script (e.g., .. and \ :::land ::J, :::land ~ do not appear with any great frequency in the translation. (Furthermore, the confusion of" and \ that could only have occurred in square script, must be ignored if moues lectionis are involved.) However, such graphic confusion based on the square script does seem to playa major role in Samuel (cf. 3:2,6, 11), so the Vorlage used by the translators of LXX (as well as those used by the other translators) does appear to have been written in square script. The ingenious, but discredited, transcription theory of Franz Wutz may be mentioned briefly at this point. In several studies produced early in the current century, Wutz propounded the theory that the translators of LXX worked from texts in which the Hebrew had been transcribed in Greek characters, checking the actual Hebrew text only occasionally.61 Though n.79. 59Cf. ibid... 220. 60s. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Tt1Xl and the Topography ofthe Book.'. ofSamuel, 2d ed. (Ox ford: Clarendon Press. 1913; repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960), lxiv. C f. the similar conclusion of Johann Fischer for the Pentateuch: "Wie ersichtlicb, steM 6-1S. 77Anson F. Rainey. review of Matres Lectioois in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs, by Ziony Zevit, in Journal ofBiblical LiltraJure 102 (1983): 632. 78Andersen and Freedman, "Another Look at 4QSQmb," 23-27. However. the singular form with-w did occur by the sixth century in Hebrew. at least occasional!y, as in lw in an inscription from Khirbet Beit Lei; see Zevit, Matres Lectionis, 30-31. 79Cf. Zevit, Matres Lectionis, 27-28, where he noles that~ap~ in a sixth cenhUy ostracon from Arad. See also David Noel Freedman. K. A. Mathews. and R. S. Hanson, The Paleo-H~brt!W Leviticus Scroll. SO, where two occurrences of~arenoted in 11Qpa1eoLev (lS:2; 17:2). Several ofthese shorter forms occur in MT of Samuel. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 41 In light of the previous discussion, the following procedure regarding orthography will be adopted in the present thesis. Whenever the reading of MT (not its orthography) is determined to be original, its orthography will not be modified, with the exception of the third masculine singular suffix as discussed in the preceding paragraph. When a reading reconstructed from one or more of the versions is preferred to MT, the orthography of the reconstruction will agree with the orthography of other instances of the word in MT, if they exist. An exception to this rule will be made if it can be determined that a particular spelling of the Hebrew Vorlage led to readings found elsewhere in the text-traditions. It is true that the procedure adopted may result in a somewhat mixed orthography, but that is also the nature of all the extant Hebrew witnesses, including MT.80 Finally, the role of orthography in textual evaluation requires some mention. If older portions of the Bible were composed using a greater concentration ofpreexilic orthographic practices (especially defective spelling), can the presence of an older orthographic form be used as evidence of the antiquity ofa given reading? Andersen and Freedman suggest that it can, noting that the reading~ in 1 Sam 16:4 (4QSamb, in agreement with LXX), were it added by postexilic scribes, would probably be spelled i'R(l"i'T.81 However, even if earlier spelling practices, such as defective spelling, did predominate in portions of the Bible that were composed earlier, scribal copying has tended to replace most of these older readings, albeit somewhat inconsistently. The existence of defective readings even in patently late books (e.g., Dan 11:38; Esth 8: 16; Neh II: 1) suggests the doubtfulness, if not impossibility, of equating archaic orthography with early readings. Such arguments, if they are advanced, must be made with due reservation. 80nus statement is true regardless of the position one adopts concerning the possibility of recovering an earlier orthography ofportions of MT. Thus, Cross and Freedman say, "The Hebrew Bible which tradition has delivered to us is in reality a palimpsest; underlying the visible text, the varied spelling customs ofolder ages have bem recorded" (Cross and Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography, 1); cf. Barr's "zone ofvariable spellings" (Barr, Variable Spellings, 204-5). 81 Andersen and Freedman, "Another Look at 4QSamb," 8. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 42 Conclusions concemin2 MethodoloiY It must be admitted that retroverting a translation is a subjective venture in most cases (with the general exception of proper nouns). However, as Tov points out, certain categories of retroversions are reasonably reliable, namely, those supported by identifiable scribal errors in Hebrew, those supported by Hebraisms, and those that result in readings that are preferable to MT. Concordances and lexicons will serve as useful tools in the process of retroversion, as will the lists of lexical equivalents between the target languages and the Hebrew in 1 Samuel 3 for each of the secondary versions, found in Appendix 1 of the dissertation.82 When the reconstruction requires grammatical structures not present in MT, the grammatical tables in Appendix 1 of the dissertation will be used for reference.83 It will sometimes occur that the V():fage of a version is uncertain, either because no equivalent that can be easily explained as a deviation from MT or one of the other versions exists, or because more than one possible reading exists. In the latter case (e.g., the decision of whether to render 0'0\ with~ 1', or 1-), the use in the chapter (as indicated in the lexical and grammatical tables) and the rest of the book is an important guideline, but it must be acknowledged that at times a subjective, almost arbitrary, decision must be made when the data does not favor one reading over the others. In the case where no good Hebrew equivalent seems to exist for a versional reading, one that reflects as much as possible both the versional evidence and the possibility of a scribal error in Hebrew will be attempted. In some cases, it may be preferable simply to admit that no single reconstruction is compelling, and to offer more than one. In other cases, it may be best to retain the reading of MT and simply note the versional variant. 82Adair, diss., 252-56 (LXX), 263-66 (P), 272-75 (n. 282-86 (V). 83fbid., 256-61? (LXX). 266-11 (P), 215-80 {TI, 286-91 (V). Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 43 Retroversions of the Secondary and Partial Secondary Witnesses In the ren-oversions that follow, MT is taken as the starting point for reconstructing whole verses, and deviations from MT based on the version in question are indicated by text in a larger type. If the reconstructed Hebrew text omits one or more items found in MT, the symbol <1tEro in Gen 48: 10 (rendering i:C) could have suggested the unique rendering. the possibility of graphic confusion makes it probable that the translators were seeking to render a form of -r.:c.85 Although conjunctions are rather easily added or omitted in all witnesses, the concern of the translators of LXX for fidelity to their text in most instances and the fact that the additional conjunction appears in many Masoretic mss and in T makes it likely that the Vorlage of LXX contained a conjunction. The absolute consistency with which the translators ofLXX render conjunctions, as well as the context, makes it certain that that conjunction was -t This verse contains LXX variant 72 ?(? < omission of miT', see diss., 119). The translators apparently did not find rni'in their Vorlage. "JJi1~' ~~ ~rJU ?? iTliT ~v' (3:4) Verse 4 contains two LXX variants, 74 ?() < omission of~ see diss., 118-19, and above, p. 7, n. 15) and 75 (~J'JO < UxJ.l0ul1A, see diss., 120-21). Though the omission of ~wouldnot normally be considered significant, in the present verse it is possible that ~in MT is actually the remnant of an original ~l'JO, as LXX seems to imply.86 85Cf. also the reading of P. -:,m... ,u lm~tl. Since i.n... is a common rendering of"i-O it is possible that the translators read "TI':Dor something similar here. However. the occurrence of u.-r<,m~C't in 4: 15 as a rendering of i"'q' 1"nll (Mn precludes considering the variant in 3:2 significant. since u.- seems to be a common Syriac idiom for speaking ofblindoess. 860tto Thenius, Die Bacher Samuels, 2d ed., Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handhuch zum Alten Testament. 00. 4 (Leipzig: S. Hirzel. 1864). 16; Julius Wellhausen. Ver Text der BUcher Samuelis (Gottingen: Vandeohoeck & Ruprecht. 1871).52; S. R. Driver. Notes on tile Books ofSamuel. 42. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 45 This verse exhibits two deviations from MT, LXX variants 76(~< (JE, see diss., 119) and 12 (:IZT < avEc:rtpE1peV, see diss., 101). In the first case, the retroversion ~could probably just as easily be 1" (cf..., rmii':n 3:5,6, 8), but the occurrence of~~ in the immediate context (3:9) suggests th':.l . ,.~e longer form may also have appeared in the Vorlage.s7 Concerning variant 12, avampecpo> is the regular rendering of ::l1D in Kingdoms and throughout the QT, rendering it some forty times in Kingdoms alone. In addition, if the Vorlage of LXX indeed differs from MT, the occurrences of:rKZ2 and :cutogether in 3:5, 6 makes the present retroversion certain. Several differences from MT occur in the reconstructed Vorlage of LXX in verse 6: LXX variant 78 (-, 20 < Kat, see diss., 119-20), variant 13 (~P'" < EKaA?crEV, see diss., 105), variant 79 (<tepov always render some form of the Hebrew "Jtt1, so this retroversion is also fairly certain. The variants in this verse are LXX variants 15 (C"~< StOV, see diss., 101) and 86 ?0) < omission of c-Jt:l, see diss., 123-24). Concerning variant 15, although iT1iT' and C"~ are equivalent in the sense that both refer to the God of the Israelite\), the translators of LXX generally make a distinction in their rendering of the two names, using SEOC; for C'~and KUptoc; for iTliT". The tendency in at least some scribal circles to replace C"~with iTliT on a more or less regular basis (cf. Pss 14 and 53) suggests that the exchange may have occurred in Hebrew rather than at the point of translation, especially since the translators render all fifteen other occurrences of iiiiT' in the chapter by KUplOc;. The retroversion of variant 86 is straightforward since it involves an omission. 89Since it cannot be detennined in many cases whether parablepsis occurred in the Vorlage, at the point of translation, or early in the transmission of the translated text, it seems best to operate as though the error were in the Vorlaf:e. If parablepsis is confirmed in the evaluation phase as a contributing factor to the disturbance, the reading will be regarded as secondary at that point. 90For a discussion of the reading EIC BEU"CEPOU VS. "Co &U"CEpOV of B, see Adair. diss., 49. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 47 '1'Jl~ ::J:IZT, ~rJU 1'"' .,-ou JJal "::l iT1iT' i.:li~ ,.~~ Cl( iT'i!'1 "'J:J :cu :JW ?? ~, (3:9) The following LXX variants appear in verse 9: variant 87 (f<)t < omission of "'''.u ~7JZb, see diss., 119), variant 18 (:::l'lU1 < avo:.u'tpEV autou, see diss., 122). The frrst of these variants, variant 30, involves a difference in time: MT reads ~mii1 (apparently a waw consecutive with a perfect verb, and thus a reference to the future), whereas LXX has avT1YYEAlCa (a perfect, and clearly a reference to past time). The two other occurrences of waw consecutive with perfect in the chapter are rendered by Greek future tenses. Although three cases are not sufficient to establish a definite trend, the connotation of future time usually associated with the waw consecutive plus perfect and the support of other versions (T and V) makes it likely that the Vorlage of LXX contained some other construction, one referring to a past revelation to the house of Eli (I Sam 2:27-36). The most obvious construction is a waw consecutive with an imperfect verb, the most common verbal form in Hebrew narrative. Although the graphic similarity of the two forms is not great, no other solution seems more likely.93 92Another instance of AnA?W with EtC; occurs in Esth 4:8, but EtC; is used in a way semantically dissimilar to the one in 1 Sam 3: 12 (in a terminal accusative phrase). so it is irrelevant. 93Some graphic similarity between i1 and l'(does exist in certain forms of the Egyptian cursive script. and this similarity may have contributed to the confusion; cf. E. Kautzsch, ed, Gesenius' Hebrl!H! Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1910) [hereafter GKC, Grammar]. Table of Alphabets following p. xvi. col. 13. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 50 Variant 32 has a plural in LXX where MT has a singular (cf. also T, but see diss., 171), so retroversion is straightforward. Variants 94 and 95 may be considered together, since they are substimtional variants of one another. Though the origins of these two readings may be related, it is impossible at this point to determine with confidence what that relationship is, since there is little ifany graphic or aural similarity. Despite the difficulties surrounding the question of the origin of the readings, their retroversion is a simple matter. The omission in variant 94 requires no comment, and the retroversion of Ulrov autou is obvious. The final variant in verse 13 involves the reading geov for t:r'1? in variant 33. The Masoretic notes indicate that [J"1', is a scribal correction, an attempt to avoid the combination C'~C'~ The retroversion is supported by both the riqqun sopherim and the graphic similarity of C1';J and C'~ 0,111 '11 iIllI:.D1 rT:1.I "'11 rT':J 1'11 -m'l" ~ "'11 rr:.' "n.tezn P ~ (3: 14) LXX variant 34

lCUpt.o> ?l~ xav'ta JcrPaTJA. ax aKpoov tll<; "(Il<; Kat. EOOl; aKpcov. Kat. HAEt. 1tpecr~u'tTl~ crf5 1i'T in twenty-eight of its thirty-t-No occurrences in LXX, and uqx; '5flU. render:, ?'~~~ in at least ninety-five percent of its 350+ cases. The second phrase, Kat Ot,. t a,u'wu 1tOpEUOJ.lEVOl E1tOpeuov'to, Kat 1tovTlpa 11 000e; au'tOJV ?vromov 1CUplOU, begins with a Hebraism, which surely reflects a construction with the infinitive absolute followed by the perfect, carrying the idea of continuous behavior (cf. Judg 14:9; 2 Sam 5: 10) .94 In the second part of phrase, 1t0Vl1pOe; and oooe; are by far the most cor.lmon translations of .tr1 and "" respectively, and EVromoV regularly renders "Jo, (though iiliT' "J".1Ois also possible), so the retroversion is relatively certain.95 94Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Bihlical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake. IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). 589-90. 95Cf. the retroversions offered in the commentaries: Thenius. Bacher SamueLf, 18~ P. Paul Dhorme. us livre.f de Samuel. Etudes bibtiques (Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1910).45; Karl Budde. Die BUc~r Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 54 Peshitta "r1!Jl rrn r:.-~ mil a~J':l iT'iT 'p" iTlir 1:l11 ~,;2 "J~ iTlir ~ rrmr.J ?KaJ 1mm (3:1) The only deviation from MT in this verse is P variant 48 (iriTl'" < I" T'm K1i'" ~??, :co .,.,~~ ""17 it1't'1 (3:9) , 0'pc:. Two variants in quantitative representation occur in verse 9, P variants 79 (n < omission ofiTi1-, see diss., 154-55) and 81 (~? < omission of -1, see diss., 154-55). Since both variants involve omissions from the Hebrew text of elements normally represented in translation, the retroversions of the omissions are straightforward. In the case of variant 81, however, the verb itself must also be changed, either to an imperative(~ or to an imperfect (~. Table 21 (see diss., 267) indicates that all eight imperatives in MT are rendered by imperatives in P, but none of the others is part of a conditional sentence, as in the present case. Insufficient data exists in 1 Samuel 3 to accurately predict which form might have appeared in the Vorlage. However, Hebrew idiom suggests that the imperfect would have been preferred, though the waw is usually attached as well. Perhaps the waw was smeared and read as a taw at some point in the transmission of the text, leading to the anomalous form~ from which a scribe dropped the final taw. It is possible that this variant, and possibly also variant 79, would need to be reconsidered ifa larger amount of material, which ifiduded more conditional sentences, were analyzed. l:t:r11l ~ iTTJr.D1 n:rr.: ""11 rr:lll1l~~ "';11l rr:'';1"n1O:1n:i;7?? (3:14) Verse 13 also involves the omission of an element present in MT, P variant 94 (<vaniensium, no. 74 (Leuven: University Pr~ss, 1986). 9Ulrich, "Canonical Process and Textual Criticism," 278-86, esp. 285-86. S~ also idem, "Douhle Literary Editions," 103-8. 1O'fhe insertion of John 7:53-8: II into its present place in the Gospel of John in many mss is an example of an isolated insertion unrelated to further literary activity. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 71 study of Stanley D. Walters on 1 Samuel 1 in MT and LXX (ms B).l1 Walters contends that MT and LXX are "diScrete narratives, each with its own Tendenz."12 Moreover, he says, I doubt that there ever was an original text which has given rise-by known processes of transmission-to the two stories MrT] and B rLXX]. The present MS evidence attests alternate traditions-perhaps prophetic and priestly--rather than a series of successive variations on a single tradition.l3 Specifically. whereas MT stresses the joint activity of Hannah and Elkanah in making the sacrifice after Samuel's birth and in presenting him to Eli, LXX makes Hanl12h dependent on her husband for all her actions. 14 Reactions to Walters's analysis have been mixed. Though he disagrees with some specifics of Walters's arguments, Ulrich agrees with "his general conclusion that, as I would rephrase it, in 1 Samuel 1 the MT and the LXX (in basic fidelity to its Hebrew Vorlage) may well present two different editions of the text, one intentionally different from the other, each internally consistent."'15 Tov explicitly rejects the notion of different pristine texts of Samuel, believing instead that the readings in the various extant witnesses are genetically related.16 However, he leaves open the possibility that 1 Samuel 16-18 is part of a larger revision of the whole text of Samuel, a possibility that must be considered especially when LXX has a significantly shorter text 17 Johann Cook also disputes the notion of independent texts in 1 Samuel 1-2. Ina study of 1 Sam 1:28 and 2: 11, Cook concludes that the variant versions 11Stanley D. Walters, "Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hehrew Texts of 1 Samuel!," Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 385-412. 12lbicl., 409. 131hid., 410. 14Ihid., 408-9. 15Ulrich, "Canonical Process and Textual Criticism," 281. 16Tnv, Textual Criticism oftile Hehrt'\\, Bihle, 173-76. In particular, he denies that MT and LXX offer inc.lepemlent l......ditions in I Sam !:23, as Walters proposes (ibid., 176: S. D. Walt~, "Hannah and Anna," 410-12). 17Tov, Texlllal Criticism of the Hehrev.: Bible, 346-47. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 72 ofMT and LXX are based on an earlier (Hebrew) version that excluded the Song ofHannah.ts The possibility of separate literary editions of 1 Samuel 1-2 cannot be said to have been ruled out, but neither has it been satisfactorily demonstrated. In addition to the proposals of Walters concerning 1 Samuel 1, many scholars posit two or more separate editions of tile entire Deuteronomistic History.19 For example, Richard D. Nelson, who sees two distinct editions, says that the fIrst edition was composed by a true historian during the reign ofJosiah, and the second.was revised by an editor early in the exile.2o Even if the analyses of Nelson and others are accurate, their relevance for the text? critical study of Samuel is problematic. In the fITst place, scholars find few Deuteronomistic intrusions in the books of Samuel, particularly after I Samuel 12.21 Secondly, no correlation has been shown to exist between the earlier edition of the Deuteronomistic History and any textual witness; all the witnesses testify to the final, exilic edition. There are certainly substantial differences between MT and LXX, for example, in the books of Kings, including diffaences in the chronology of the kings and significant differences in content and order of the narratives.22 Differenws exist between MT and LXX in Joshua and Judges, too.23 It 18Jobann Cook. "Hannah and/or ELk.anah on Their Way Home (1 Samuel2:11)'? A Witness to the Complexity of the Tradition History of the Samuel Texts," Old Testament Essays 3 (1990): 253-54. 19See, e.g., Helga Weippert. "Die ?deuteronoDJ.i.~ischen?BeurteilWlgen der KOoige von [snael und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion da Konigsbticber," Biblica 53 (1972): 301-39; Frank Moore Cross. Canaanile Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in lhi! Hislory ofthi! Religion ofIsrael (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1973),274?89; Richard D. Nelson. TI,e Double Redaction ofthe Deuterollomi.ftic History, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. no. 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press. (981). 20Ne1son, Double Redaction, 42 and passim. 21Ibid.? 14. Cf. also Gerhard von Rad, Old TestlJJnellt 111eology, 2 vols.? trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1962-65),346: "For a long stretch after the end of the Deuteronomistic Book of Judges in 1Sam. XII the Deuterooomist's interpreting hand abandons us, and only again comes into action with the story of Solomon (I Kings Ill)." 22See, e.g., James Donald Shenke1. Chronology and Recensional Dev~lopm~nl in the Greek Ten of Kings, Harvard Semitic Monographs, DO. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968); Ralph W. Klein. M Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Testament," Han'anl Theological Review 61 (1974): 255-63; Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, Jehu y Jads: Tata y composicion literaria de 2 Reyes 9-11, lnstituci6n SM Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 73 remains to be demonstrated convincingly that such a pattern of differences exists between the witnesses of Samuel. The evaluation of 1 Samuel 3 shows no conclusive evidence of differences on the literary level, though it has been suggested that the long addition in 3:21 and 4: 1 in LXX may be the result of literary and not just textual differences.24 In view of the lack of evidence at this point of different editions in chapter 3, the variants there will be treated as purely textual variants. However, the matter of separate editions will have to be addressed once again when verse 21 is evaluated. Conjectural Emendations The term "'emendation" is used in at least four different ways by scholars. First, some scholars refer to any reading retroverted from one of the secondary versions as an emendation. However, since evidence of the reading does occur in an extant text-tradition, the term "retroverted reading" is more appropriate. Second, any change to the Masoretic vocalization or accents can be called an emendation, especially if it is not supported by one of the versions (and so is not a retroverted reading). Since the goal of this thesis is tfJ reconstruct a purely consonantal text, such emendations are irrelevant to the task at hand. ~imilarly, philological p.mendations that involve no change in the consonantal text but only the recognition ofa new root related to a cognate langm:.~, ':! or ofa newly discovered grammatical structure are largely irrelevant to the present discussion, since they do not affect the consonantal text. In this study, the term "emendation" will refer only to proposed or accepted readings that (1) require a change in the consonantal text (including changes in word division, since it is likely that the Geronimo, no. 17 (Valencia: Edilva, 1984); Baruch Halpern and David S. Vanderhooft, "The Editions of Kings in tht! 7th-6th Centuries B.C.E.," Hebrew Union College Annual 62 (1991): 179-244. 23See Tov, Textual Criticism ofthe Hebrew Bible, 327-32, 344-45, and the bibliographies there. 24So Barthelemy, Critique II'.x1uelle, 1:152; hut contrast the explanations in McCarter, 1Samul'l. 97; Ralph W. Klein, J Samuel, Word Bihlical CODl.lllenlary, vol. 10, gen. eds. David A. Hubbard and GleM W. Barker, Old Testament editor John D. W. Watls (Waco: Word Books, 1983),30. See also below, 82-83, where further possible t!vidence of litt!I'3IY differences is discussed. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 74 earliest forms of the text used some means of separating words), and (2) are not documented in the extant witnesses.25 Scholars of earlier generations resorted to conjectural emendation of their text quite frequently, with what many modern scholars would call reckless abandon. In reaction to their excesses, some modems have eschewed the practice aitogether.26 Others have for the most part tried to maintain the consonantal text of MT (with the exception ofmatres lectionis) and to solve textual difficultIes on the basis of comparative philology.27 Still others advocate the continued judicious use of conjectural emendatiOtis.28 It is this last approach which is followed in the present thesis, for at least three reasons. First, emendation is a recognized part of the text-critical process, whether one is examining biblical, classical, medieval, or modern texts.29 Second, the MT of Samuel is patently poor in comparison with other books.3o Third, :!SThis definition of emendation is suhstantially the same AS th.t of Tov, Talual Criticism ()fth~ Hebrew Bible. 351-53. Tov identifies three different types of emendations: contextual emendations. linguistic emendations. and emendations for metrical reasons (ibid., 357-69). Theset~ ofemendations are nol distinguished in this thesis. 16For example, the Committee for the Texhlal AnalY!iis of the Hebrew Old Teshtmentex~~ extreme reservations about making conjectures because of the danger of comapting the text still further. In addition, they are concerned that some conjectures OlIly restore a precanonical fonn of the text (e.g., the text ofJ in tbe Pentateuch) rather than the text of the final redactor. See Barthelemy. Critique tutuelk. 1:74-77. ::nThe most famous proponent of the this method was !ilIrely Mitchell Dahood. ttlough many ot~ have also w;ed the ~thod. See. e.g.? Mitchell Dahood. "The Value ofUglritic for Textual Criticism." Biblica 40 (1959): 160-70; idem. "Ebla, Ugarit. and the Bible," Afterword to Th" :~rcl,ives ofEbla: An Empir~ Inscribed in Clay, by Giovanni Pettinato (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.? 1981),271-321. For. critique ofabuses of this method, see James Barr, C()mparatil'~ Philology and the Tut ofth~Old Testam~nt(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; reprint, with additions and corrections. Winona Lake. IN: Eisenbl'auns. 1987). 18Bertil Alhrektson. "Difficilior Lectio Prohahilior: A Rule ofTextual Criticism and Ito; Use in Old Testament Studies." in Remembering All the Way. . .: A Collection of Old Testament Studi~s Publi.fhM on the Occasioll ofthe Fortieth Anniverstlry ofthe Oudrestamelltisch WerkgeZt!lscJwp in Nederland, ed. A. S. van der Woude. Oudtestamentische Studien~no. 21 (Leiden: E. J. BriU. 1981). 14-17; Tov. Tt!XIual Criticism ofthe Hebrew Biblr. 351-69. Z9Maao;, Texmal CriTicism, 11-17. Although noting the difficulties involved with many emendAtions. he conm1;,:nls, -It is far more dangerous for a corruption to pass ~ognized than for a sound text to bt: unjustitiablyattacked" ..p. 17). 30NlImemus scholars and commentatnr.; could he cited who hold similar opinions. including S. R. Driver. Notes 0" the Books ofSamuel. xxxv-xxxvi; McCarter. I Samuel. 5; and Harry Meyer Orlinsky. "Tht: Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 75 it seems methodologically inproper to exclude or limit the use ofconjectures in advance. To quote Albrektson, "Iwhen one encounters a difficult reading,l two possible explanations must be compared: is a particular difficulty due to an error in the textual transmission or to a linguistic anomaly, puzzling but explicable? The answer cannot be given in advance, and the possibilWe=> must be considered on equal terms."31 Guidelines for EValuatin~ Variants Once the various original and reconstructed Hebrew variants are assembled, how are they be evaluated? The text-eritical value ofa certain variant may be measured according to two different sets of criteria, external and internal. External criteria include the evaluation ofa variant on the basis of the age or presumed worth of the witnesses containing it, the number of witnesses containing the variant, the geographical distribution of the variant, and the distribution of the variant among different text-types or local texts. A comparison of the methods of textual critics of the OT and u'le NT reveals an interesting phenomenon: wher:.2s most NT textual critics put a fairly heavy emphasis on external criteria, most OT textual critics do not,3:! One group of OT scholars that sees value in some types ofexternal evidence might be caHed the American, or perhaps the Albright, school. These scholars are influenced by Albright's proposal that divergent local texts of the Hebrew Bible emerged in various locations (.1 ioright sug6ested Babylonia, Palestine, and Egypt). The clearest expression of this position is Frank M. Cross's article on the theory of local texts.33 Cross's theory is an amplification Textual Criticism of th~ Old Testament," in 111e Bible and the Ancient Near Elm: E'tsays in Honor oJWilliam Foxwell A/hrigJu, ed. George Ernest Wright, 113-32 (Garden City. NY: Doubleday & Co., 1961), 150. 31 Alhrektsnn, "Difficilinr Lectin Prnhahilior," J6. 32For an overview of the two major approaches to NT textual criticism, rigorous (thoroughgoing) eclecticism and f'dtional (modified) edecticism, see Adair. diss.? 16-17. and, in greater detail, Jamoo:s A Brooks. "The Tt:xt of the New Testamtmt and Biblical Authority," Somhwestem Journal ofTheology 34 (1992): 19-20. 33Frank Moure Cmss. ""The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts," in Qumran an,1 tile Hi...lOry Offill> BibJiw/ 1exl, ed. Cross and Talmon. 306?20. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 76 not only of Albright's work, but also that of Barthelemy.34 According to the theory of local texts, three distinct textual families can be discerned in the witnesses of Samuel. A reading that appears in two of the local texts has a greater possibility of being original than one that appears in only one local text.3S A related external phenomenon is the occurrence of related readings in witnesses from different text-traditions, such as the agreements of LXX with P, LXX with a reading from the apocrypha or rabbinic literature, or LXX wi~< Masoretic mss that sometimes preserve significant readin~s.36 Connected with this phenomenon is the question of whether variants in one witness that have been judged nonsignificant should playa role in the evaluation of a parallel significant reading in another witness. The answer is that in many cases they should be considered in the evaluation process, though due caution must be exercised. The adage that there is strength in numbers applies to this situatior.: readings that are otherwise nonsignificant must be reevaluated if a similar reading elsewhere turns out to be significant. The nonsigniiicant reading remains nonsignificant, but it can and should be cited alongside the evidence of the significant variant, though due caution concerning its relevance should be noted.37 A similar judgment could be made concerning other agreements among the text-traditions. The issue of how to represent such agreements in the critical apparatus is ajdressed below. External considerations do play some role in evaluating variant readings, but internal factors are more irnportant.38 Numerous rules and guidelines have been developed to assist the 34Dominique Barthelemy, "Redecouverte d'un chainon manql1ant de I'histoire de la Septante." R~VUi' biblique 60 (1953): 18-29; idem, Les devallciers d'Aquila, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, no. 10 (I.eiden: E. J. Brill, 1963). See also R. W. Klein, TeXlual Criticism, 69-73; Ulrich, Qumrall Text ofSamuel, 4-9. 35Cf. Cross, "Theory of Local Texts," 317, n. II. Of course. a reading that appears in two local texts is not necessarily original, particularly if those two are the Palestinian and the Egyptian texts. which share a common ancestor, according to the theory. The point here is only that scholars that hold to this theory put greater emphasis on external factors than do other scholars. 36See the discllssion of this "zeer gecompliceerde vraagstukken" in Seeligmann, "Prohlemen en perspektieven," 382-84. 37Adair, diss., 249. Ct". also the example from I Sam 3:21 discllssed in ihid., 249-50. 38McCarter, Textual Criticism. 71-72, outlines the hazards of using external criterill when evaluating readings. Particularly impurtant is his observation that a r~ding from a InS with a preponderance ()f~ul:J" Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 77 textual critic in his or her decision-making process. Examples of such guidelines include preference for the shorter readings, preference for the more difficult reading, preference for the reading more consistent with the author's vocabulary and style, and consideration given to possible mechanical errors (e.g., parablepsis [homoioteleuton and homoioarkton], dittography, haplography).39 As long as these suggestions are seen as guidelines or helps, they can be of benefit, particularly to the beginning student. However, the idea that they are fixed rules should be avoided, since every case must be considered individually, and many factors often come into play.40 As Tov notes, "the quintessence of textual criticism is to select from the different transmitted readings the one reading which is the most appropriate in the context."41 The emphasis on one reading is especially important when one is attempting to produce a critical text, as will be done in the following chapter. The following section may be considered readings should not automatically be preferred to a reading from a generally inferior IllS. Ifone had some assurance that one IllS was accurate ninety percent of the time and another only seventy percent of the time, then one could justifiably rely on the more accurate IllS except in the case of obvious errors. However, since such an assurance would of necessity come from outside the IllS itself, and since the quality of a ms in the fU'St place is determined by intemal considerations, the critic has no reason to believe that the reading from the one IDS has a greater probability of being correct than that from the other, just because previous readings of the first IDS have been better. One possible exception to this characterization of the value ofexternal evidence exists, however. McCarter correctly notes that "the stemma of the biblical text is extremely intricate, and its various lines of transmission are not distinct and independent'" (ibid., 71). Nevertheless, ifa partial stemma can be reconstructed, as Cross's local text theory attempts to do, parallel non-trivial variants in unrelated sources should be considered -at least as evidence that the reading originated in Hebrew-alongside internal evidence. In addition, if the internal evidence provides no clues whatsoever to the older reading, some external factor will have to be used to decide which variant to print in the critical text. 39Cf. R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism, 73-83; McCarter, TeXlunl Criticism, 26-61; Deist, TeXl a/the OT, 38-50; Ernst Wiirthwein, The Text o/the Old Testament:.An Introdw:tion to the Biblia Hebraica, trans. ErrolJ F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: William B. EerdnlaDs, 1979), 106-10; Tov, Textual Criticism o/the Hebrev.? Bible, 236-84. Alongside these lists of guidelines, discussions of scribal habits are also infonnative. See especially Fishbane. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient lvrael, passim; Shemaryahu Talmon. "DSla As a Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah.... .Annual 0/the Swedish 17leological Institute 1 (1962): 62-72; idem. "Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts," Textus 4 (1964): 95-132; 40See the discussion in Emanuel Tov, "Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The Limitations of Textual Rul~s,"Harvard 17leologic:al Review 75 (1982): 429-48. 41 Ihid.? 444-45 (italics his). Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 78 a commentary on that critical text. Evaluations of the Variants The reading of MT is given as a collating base for each verse. The variant readings from the secondary witnesses are then grouped into units which will be considered together. Instead of repeating the entire retroversion ofeach verse, only those parts of the verse necessary for the collation will be listed, following the reading of MT. For ease of reference, following each set of variants is the location of the major discussions ofeach variant in the present thesis (See above ...) and in my dissertation (see also diss., ...). To this point, Only variants in the secondary witnesses have been discussed to any extent, since variants in the primary witnesses are by definition significant and require no retroversion. The sigla in the collations are consistent with those used in chapter 2 of my dissertation. The reading of the base text (MT) will be given first, followed by a large right bracket']'. If more than one such reading occurs in the verse, the one in question will be identified by a numeral followed by a small superscript 0: '1 0 ', '2?', and so forth. Next, the variant reading(s) will each be given (as retroverted in the previous chapter), along with the witnesses that support the reading. Each of the variants following the base reading will be separated from the previous one by a vertical bar 'I'. Witnesses will be listed in the following order: primary (Hebrew) witnesses,42 secondary witnesses, partial secondary witnesses, conjectures (abbreviated 'cj'. followed by the names of scholars or Bible versions that propose or accept the conjecture). Witnesses that support a reading in most respects (or the most important respects) but differ in small details will be enclosed in parentheses '0'. Next, the symbols '+' and ">' represent an addition and an omission with respect to the base text, respectively. The abbreviations 'pr' and 'post' mean that the variant precedes or follows the 42Especial1y Masoretic ross 70, 89. 174, 187 (KennicoU's numbers; for a brief description of the mss. see Adair. dis!;.? 239-40); 4QSama, where extant; kerilib or qere. cited as K and Q. respectively; and riqqufu' sopheri"" cited as riq soph. Other Masoretic IllSS may occac;ionally be cited in support of significant readings. though their readings are not considered significant, as indicated by the smaller font size lL'IW in the references. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 79 word or phrase given as the base text, respectively. A superscripted vid means that one may infer the reading from the witness, though it does not explicitly contain it (e.g., as a result of a lacuna), and a superscripted mss following the abbreviation of a witness refers to a reading that is not the main rendering within the text-tradition. Finally, nonsignificant variants cited in support of a significant variant in one of the secondary witnesses will be printed in smaller type following the significant reading (e.g., if the reading of LXX is significant and the readings of P and V, while agreeing with LXX, are nonsignificant, that part of the collation would read: LXX P V). No attempt will be made to cite every nonsignificant variant that agrees with a significant variant. P:JI J1m r~ ern C!'cr:l 'i'" t'T'il iiiiT' 1:t1'1 ",.11 "J::!? iT1iT' nN~~rJO imiTl (3: 1) ""D] + li01 LXX p liO'T is probably an explanatory addition to the text, perhaps based on 2: 11 (cf. 1:9). The reading of P might reflect the influence of LXX; if so, the reading might be secondary in P, though it is preserved in all extant mss. However, it is also possible that the translators added the word independently. It is almost certainly secondary. (See above, 43; see also diss., 119, 153-54.) 1'" iT'j'J iT1il"] il"ii V miT' P Although it is possible that the verb is secondary in all the traditions. it is probable that this variant arose as a result of graphic similarity between iTiland miT, causing the verb to be omitted accidentally, only to be replaced later in the wrong place (perhaps as a result of being written in the margin). In addition to the argument from graphic confusion (which would not have occurred had the order supposed in P been original), normal Hebrew idiom seems to favor the medial position of the verb. (See above, 54; see also diss., 147.) Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 80 yoU] y-!J LXX The J in~ could have arisen as a result of dittography from the previous Jin 11m. On the other hand, one could argue that the J was omitted as a result of haplography. It is probable that the translators of LXX had before them the reading y--Q which they took as a qat active participle, but which in fact was probably a qal passive participle. Though the niphal and the qal passive have identical meanings here, the ambiguity of the form without Jand the relative infrequence of qal passives in the OT might have led a scribe to insert the Jof the niphal, either to clarify the meaning, or perhaps under the false assumption that it had accidentally fallen out of the text The reading reflected in LXX, then, is to be preferred, though only by a small amount. (See above, 43; see also diss., 108-9.) ,I;>m] > 89 The omissivl1 of ,min ms 89 is surely secondary, resulting either from accidental haplography (perhaps aided by the common ending '1- in 1mand '"rm [k~:":lIt) in ms 89]) or from the difficulty involved with pointing rniO as an adjective. (See diss., 106). miD] i1:cl LXX p The renderings of LXX (l3apuvEcr8at) and P (-':"i..n..) suggest the possibility that their respective Vorlagen read ii:O This possibility is far from certain, even in LXX, where the variant was considered significant. Thus, to replace the rendering of MT as the probable earlier reading, the case for ii:O should be strong. However, the evidence is at best a toss-up. Although both readings make good sense in the context and are idiomatic, "11:Cis the more commonly used word. and a scribe might have wanted to replace the less common rniO with the familiar"':O When this observation is coupled with the uncertainty concerning the retroversion, the reading of MT remains preferable. (See above, 44, (see n. 851; see also Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 81 diss., 100.) ~'?] t\,?, 187 LXX P T The additional conjunction in many witnesses is natural in the context and smooths out what might have been felt to be a rough spot in the flow of the narrative. On the other hand, the absence of a conjunction serves to stress Eli's blindness (perhaps more than mere physical bHndness43). Scribes who were not sensitive to the nuances of the text might have inserted a conjunction that they felt belonged there. It is less likely that a scribe would have purposely deleted an existing conjunction, though the possibility of accidental omission is certainly not remote. All in all, the reading ofMT seems more likely to have been the earlier reading. (See above, 44, 54, 57; see also diss., 119-20, 150, 176.) ::n~] ,';0\- 187 LXXmss By reading a plural instead of a singular, the variant exhibited in ms 187 and in several mss of LXX shifts the subject of the verb from Eli himself to his eyes. While such a reading does fit the context, it seems more likely that Eli is the intended subject, rather than his eyes. If overtones of sph;tua1 blindness are present in the verse, it is surely Eli who would be criticized and not his eyes. Thus, the reading ofMT is preferable. (See above, 64, and also the previous note on this page; see also diss., 44). The reading of ms 70 at this point is a misplaced dittography; it is clearly secondary. 43Rcherf Karl Gnuse, 771e Dream TlIeophany ofSamuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its 17leological Significam:e (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), 152; for a different interpretation of Eli's blindness, see Robert Polzin, Samuel and the DeuteroJlomist: A LiTerary Study ofthe Deuter01lOmic History (San Francisco: Harper & Row. 1989),52-54. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 82 ai1~ 10 ] iTliT' P The phrasea~ iJ does not appear again in the OT, and the phrase: miT' ""'D occurs only at Prov 20:27. The shift from ai'1?K to iTlir could have occurred in Hebrew as easily as the shift from r 4QSama ~'id 4QSama has a lacuna at this point, but based on letter counts, it probably had a text that was about twenty characters shorter than that ofMT. Ulrich and McCarter have postulated the omission not only of i11iT' but also of the rest of the verse. Although this supposition is as likely as any, it is impossible to be certain about it. It seems best, then, to omit only m'T, with LXX (see previous unit of variation). (See diss., 244, n. 14.) C'~ 2?] cr~1 89 Ms 89 has an article attzched to O'~ a reading which is equivalent, though less common. Nevertheless, the reading with the article is not compelling, so the reading of the majority of Masoretic mss will be retained. "JJiT~' ~r.1O ,,~ miT' ~, (3:4) ~,~ ~] ['??N1rJ!J ~1J0t14QSama I ~1rJ!J ~rJ!J LXX A discussion of these variants is reserved for later (see below, 112-15). (See above, 44 and 7, n. 15; see also diss., 118-21, 218-19.) "rn-,'ip] + "J:l 70mg pmss itm~~ I + " 187 I +~ LXX I + "or +~pm~s The additional word "J:::l is probably the result of harmonization with verse 6, though it may have arisen independently. Either way, it is probably secondary. As for the prepositional phrase, the context of verse 5 certainly supports its presence. but it does not require it. The addressee in the more concise statement of MT is equally clear. It is likely. then. that the Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 84 prepositional phrasl;: is a contextual addition. (See above, 45, 64; see also diss., 119.60-61.) "~i] ::l!ri LXX A discussion of this unit of variation is reserved for later (see below, 112-15). (See above, 45; see also diss., 101. 218-19.) "~ip t\~ iJ':l\'i ~, ffi\"l' ":J "JJi1 '~i "11 ~171 ~ao Wi ~ao .,"11 N1' miT rR"' (3:6) ::cu~ .J~ .,,11 t\"iP miT] t\"iP iTlir .,,11 P I t\"ij71 ii1i1" LXX I ~.,,11 mi1" LXXL All these variants revolve around the placement--or existenee-of the temporal adverb iW (the additional conjunction and different verb fonn in LXX will be considered below). The order of the words t\Ip i11iT remains constant in every witness, but .,,11appears in every possible place: before, between, and after miT and ~, and it is also absent in one tradition. The accidental addition, omission, or transposition of the adverb does not change the meaning of the sentence, since :pi specifies repetitive action. Furthermore, the present verse is not the only one in which .,U10r its equivalent moves around in the witnesses (cf. 3:8 P V LXXo; 3:9 LXXU1.o;S; 3:21 P). The omission of the word in LXX (combined with a change in the sentence structure in LXX, to be discussed in the next section) and the varied placement of i'W in the other witnes~s lead one to suspect that the form now found in LXX is the earliest form. (See above, 45-46, 55, 60; see also diss., 105, 119-20, 147, 203.) t\y] ~, LXX Both readings are acceptable Hebrew constructions, though the reading ofMT is both more common and present in the immediate context (3:8 all witnesses). That readings of the type found in LXX are not foreign to the idiom of Samuel can be seen from 1 Sam 19:21; 2 Sam 18:22. It is probable that the original form found in the Vorlage of LXX was changed during the transmission of MT to reflect the more common idiom, which was also present in Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 85 the context. However, the possibility that LXX here reflects a different literary stage than MT cannot be ruled out, though the evidence is inconclusive at this point. This issue will be taken up further below. (See above, 45; see also diss., 105, 119-20.) ~r.E 10 ] + "]Jjj ""Q\'1 70 The phrase "JJil~1 in ms 70 is almost certainly an imitation of Samuel's actions in 3:4, so the reading ofMT is to be preferred. ~1JO 10 ] + ?mTJU LXX A discussion of this unit of variation is reserved for later (see below, 112-15). (See above, 45-46; see also diss., 120-21.) ~TJO q7'1] > 89 187 LXX One could argue that the longer reading of MT is a later insertion designed to make the present verse more closely resemble verse 8. However, the immediately preceding verse lacks any reference to Samuel arising, and no attempts to correct that verse exist It is more likely that the omission of ~CZ1 l:f"" is due to parablepsis in either Hebrew or Greek from "Samuel" to "Samuel." The same error could have occurred independently in the Hebrew witnesses on the one hand and LXX on the other, though some sort ofgenetic connection cannot be ruled out. In eiiher case, the longer reading of MT is to be preferred. ~TJU2?] > 174 The missing ~1JOafter Cf"'1 in ms 174 could have developed from either the longer or the shorter text of the previous unit of variation. If the reading was based on the majority MT, ~rJt1might have dropped out as a result of haplography. If the reading was based on the shorter text, q7" might have been inserted either from verse 8 or from memory ofother mss. If the evaluation of the preceding unit of variation is correct, then the reading of ms 174 is probably not original, since the opportunity for parablepsis would no longer be present. The Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 86 reading of the majority of Masoretic mss should be retained. ",11] + rrm LXX The word rr:n.u functions in LXX similarly to the way in which -nv functions earlier in the verse in most other witnesses: it distinguishes the second ca.ll of Samuel from the first. Even without these additions, the two descriptions are not identical. Nevertheless, scribes apparently felt some need to further differentiate the incidents. rT'lUhas a stronger rhetorical impact than ;W, and its addition may be seen as an attempt by the tradents of the Vorlage of LXX44 to more sharply distinguish the second call from the first. rT':m may be compared with ~ in verse 8, which may have inspired the addition in verse 6. Since rrm appears to be an attempted improvement of the text, and since no reason for deleting the word were it original is apparent, the reading of MT here seems preferable. (See above, 45-46; see also diss., 119.) The reading of ms 70 is a clear error caused by haplography. "J:J "rn\1p] "nt\...,p 70 J~ "nt\...,P LXX This unit of variation is similar to two units of variation in verse 5 (see above, 83-84). TI-e wi tnesses supporting one reading or another have changed, but the reasons for accepting the shortest reading remain the same, notwithstanding the fact that the shortest reading appears Qnly in ms 70. It is uncertain whether ms 70 is genetically related to what is probably an older reading, or whether it is simply a correction to the preceding verse. Regardless of which possibility is tme, the variation between "J:Jand ~jn the witnesses suggests that neither is original. (See above, 45-46; see also diss., 121.) 44Rather than the translators themselves, prohaoly. since analysis has shown LXX to exhibit a fairly literal translation technique. It is possible. of course, that EK' &Ut?po\.)-{)r to &Ut?pov, the rl:~l(Jing of many mss (see Adair. diss.? 49)-is an early inner-Greek addition. but the fact that all extant mss read one or the other of th.:se readings suggests the pre::sence of ITm in the Vorlage. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 87 ::J:m] + :etr, 17' ;. whole verse (repeated) 70 The repetition of ::l':lZT' Tr' from verse 5 and the entirety of verse 6 in ms 70 is apparently the result of a form of parablepsis in which the scribes eye skipped from:CU :rnuat the end of verse 6 up to the same words at the end of verse 5. Whether the deviations from the majority MT present in the first rendition of the verse are also Present in the second is not indicated in Kennicott's apparatus. If not, preservation of variant readings may also have been involved in this long dittography. Clearly, however, the repetition itself is secondary. ~:T] C"~LXX It is difficult to determine which of these words predates the other, and no compelling criteria exist for deciding the matter. On the one hand, the tendency of scribes would probably have been to change miT' to [:J'~ as the authors of Chronicles often did with material borrowed from Samuel (so, e.g., 1 Chr 14:13-17; 2 Sam 5:22-25). To argue that a scribe would also have changed other occurrences of inir to C"i"tlN in the same chapter is invalid, since an examination shows that neither Chronicles nor the Elohistic Psalter (Pss 42-83) replaces every single occurrence of i'i1iT" with C"~4S On the other hand, the word :-niT' is present numerous times in the context, including once in the same verse, so a scribe might have inadvertently written ;niT' instead of t:r~ LXX shows no particular tendency to replace miT' with cr~(or vice versa) in Samuel. However, a closer examination of some passages in Chronicles and in the Elohistic Psalter reveals that scribes tended to replace groups of occurrences of j'flJT rather than isolated cases, so the replacement of a lone case in the middle of a passage densely populated with instances of miT' seems somewhat less likely than the accidental replacement ofC'~ so the reading of LXX is preferred by a small amount. (See 45Cf. 17le Anchor Bible Dictionary, S,v. "Names of God in the QT," by Martin Rose, 1006. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 89 that behind the story of Samuel's call to prophecy preserved as a prose literary work lies an earlier poetic oral work? It is easy to see both parallelism and meter in 1 Sam 3:7, especially if the second t::rC is omitted as in LXX and the two-word phrase iTh"T' i:n is taken as compensation for the missing preposition.49 Finally, since a scribe would be much more apt to add the preposition than to delete it, the text of LXX should be preferred. (See above, 46-47; see also diss., 123-24.) miT' ""'1:J"1 , ..~] ,~ mir i:l, LXXL The variant reading in LXXL involves the placement of the prepositional phrase ,~ The most common word order for the second half of the verse would be passive verb, indirect object (prepositional phrase), direct object, as in MT, but the word order reflected in LXXLis also used in the QT. If one accepts the argument in the previous section that verse 7 might reflect the remnants of an earlier, poetic form of the story, the word order ofMT would seem to preserve the parallelism better, since the direct objects of the verbs come at the ends of the two half-verses. If not, then the word order ofMT can still be maintained as ~.nL most likely, the reading of LXXL being the result of an accidental alteration of the text. (See above, 60.) ~.." miT "::J "'D ]:1'" ", ~." "::J "JJil~, 'I'D ~ -V' W" ii~ ~~ ~." iniT' :p1 (3:8) im, ~ 1?] + itO 70 LXXo The presence or absence of liD has been noted in other witnesses in other verses (see above. 84). Since the presence of the word here conforms verse 8 to verse 6. its originality is doubtful, especially since the following~makes it superfluous. (See above, 62.) be described neither as prose nor as tightly controlled speech. Rather, it reveals the character ofa rhythmically elevated prose, in which there appear two-stress and three-stress lines which are occasionally connected in clear parallelism (see, e.g., 38:9; 39:170 without being linked by fixed laws into a metrically self-contained whole. 49Cf. The 1ll1erpreter's Dictionary ojthe Bible. s.v., "Poetry, Hebrew," by NOIlIllUl K. Gottwald, 832. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 88 above. 46; see also diss., 101. and 101, n. 27.) M. Q?Connor discusses the phenomenon of "prepositional override" in both his examination of Hebrew poetry and his grammar.46 He cites a number of instances in the poetic sections of the Hebrew Bible where prepositional override occurs. The example he lists in his grammar, 1 Sam 15:22, is also a poetic fragment. The question that arises is whether or not the same phenomenon can Occur in Hebrew prose. The reading of LXX would seem to suggest that the Hebrew Vorlage used by the Greek tran.slators omitted the second C"'C, though if this instance of prepositional override is unique in Hebrew prose, one would suspect some sort of error. The only example of the phenomenon in MT seems to be Ezek 39:4, and the editor of Ezekiel in BHS, K. Elliger, suggests that the preposition has dropped out and should be restored.47 The possibility exists that Ezek 39:4 and 1 Sam 3:7 LXX preserve an archaic prose construction that has elsewhere been replaced by multiple prepositions, but without further documentation. the evidence is meagre. Another possibility, and one that deserves more consideration, is that both of these prose passages are either remnants of older poetic material or are themselves to be considered poetic in some sense. Walther Zimmerli, for example, considers this section of Ezekiel to be "rhythmically elevated prose."48 Is it possible 46M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980),310-11; Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction, 222-23. Mitchell Dahood describes the same phenomenon under the rubric "double? duty prepositions" in Psalms III.' 101-150, The Anchor Bible, ed. William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman. vol. 17A (Garden City. NY: Douhleday & Company, 1970),435-37. Cf. also Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ?119hh. 47Hehrew mss and other versions in Ezek 39:4; 1 Sam 15:22; and other similar passages record variants that contain the missing preposition, but, though the reading of certain passages may he questionable, the phenomenon itself is wen established in poetry. Elliger's suggestion in the case of Ezekiel is probably Wlfounded. 48Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel, Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, 2 vots., trans. James D. Martin, ed. Paul D. Hanson and Leonard J. Greenspoon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1979M 83),2:299. The whule passage runs as follows: [The language of Ezek 38: 1-9*; 39: 1-5, 17-20,] as has been observed again and again in Ezekiel. can Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 90 q?"1] + ~OU 174 The extra ~rE further specifies the subject of the verb, though who the subject is is clear from the context. The interesting aspect of this reading is that it is found in the same Hebrew ms that omitted ~rJO in a parallel context in verse 6. The shorter reading of MT should be preferred. ~rJO 17: iJ:uJ 1'OlJ "':::J iTliT i:nm~ 1'~~ CN iTiTl :co l' ~1JZh ""11~1 <3:9) 1rJ\prD~, ~1'J!t) "'''11 ,~,] ',m~ ~ ""11 -at'1 70 I~, LXX I ~1'J!t) ~, v MT (with a slight variant in ms 70) specifies both the subject and the object of the verb, whereas LXX specifies neither. One can readily see that scribes nUght want to identify the speaker and the addressee were they missing, since the last subject mentioned in the previous verse was Yahweh. No apparent reason for deleting the words exists, so it is probable that they represent scribal additions to the text. (V's Vorlage was probably identical to MT, but Jerome omitted "Eli" for stylistic reasons; see diss., 233.) (See above, 47; see also diss., 119.) "l ~WLXX A discussion of these variants is reserved for later (see below, 112-15). (See above, 47; see also diss., 101.) ::c!1] + "'J::l LXX The presence or absence of a vocative "'J~ in the witnesses is similar to the situation wi th "11 mentioned above: various witnesses include it in some place, while others exclude it, only to include it elsewhere ("'J~ found in 3:5 pmss; 3:6 MT P T). The only verse in which 'J:Jis present in all the witnesses is verse 16. Since it is more likel)' fhat .J:Jwas added than that it dropped out, the reading of MT will be retained in the present verse. (See above, 47; see also Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 91 diss., 119.) ~ ii'iTl] l:1\i P The presence or absence of iT'il makes no difference to the meaning of the verse, and one could argue that P's text is actually better Syriac than a strict rendering ofMT would have been. Nevertheless, the translators tend to render almost every item in their Hebrew Vorlage (for a list of exceptions in the chapter, see diss., 127-28, 156), including a similar expression in 3:2. It is likely, then, that at some point iT'il fell out of the stream of tradition that resulted in P, either as an attempt at stylistic improvement or, more likely, by simple haplography. Thus, the text of MT is preferable. (See above, 55; see also diss., 154-55.) ~] ~:l1ms 145 182 As mentioned above, the Masora preserves several apparent instances of the interchange of ~::Jand t::::R It is possible that at least one ms of T reflects such a substitution here. The citation of the two Masoretic mss (neither of which is considered important by Goshen-Gottstein, hence the smaller type) does not suggest any sort of genetic connection with T. However, they illustrate the possibility of interchange between the two words. The evidence is admittedly slim, from the viewpoint of external evidence,so and since the two words have the same meaning in the context, the reading of MT will be retained. (See above, 64.) m~] i~P Most Hebrew conditional sentences have the apodosis begin with a waw, and it is likely that the alteration of the text, if it indeed occurred in Hebrew, was inadvertent. as explained in the previous chapter. Thus, the reading of MT should be preferred. (See above, 55; see also diss., 154-55.) 50See ahove, 75-78. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 92 ~"'i"i] " ~i'" LXX The reading "in LXX is a fairly obvious addition, specifying the object of the verb. It is therefore secondary and should be rejected. (See above, 47; see also diss., 119.) ~,oo ")moo] > LXX A discussion of these variants is reserved for later (see below, 112-15). (See above, 47; see also diss., 120-21.) This unit of variation could be seen as part of the larger set ofvariants which deal with repetition and variation among the witnesses, which will be considered below. The question that will be asked of those variants is whether they indicate different literary editions of 1 Samuel 3. Here, however, the distribution of the variants among the various witnesses indicates that the longer reading probably arose independently in many of the witnesses in an effort to conform Samuel's action in verse 10 with Eli's instruction in verse 9.51 'Thus, the reading of MT, LXX, and others should be retained. (See above, 62.) i:n] ~i:li LXX The addition of the pronominal suffix "- does more than simply add specificity; it also changes the connotation of the word 1:n from "thing" in MT ("I am doing something") to "word" in LXX ("I am accomplishing my word"), a more prophetic idea. The context seems 51Several mss of LXX apparently reversed this procedure, removing K'Upw. in verse 9 in an attempt to make it conform to verse 10. Because one of the mss to do so is B. the base text in the Cambridge edition of LXX. scholars often cite the reading of B as though it were the reading of ..the" LXX. Cf. the discussion of these LXX variants in Adair, diss., 51 ~52. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 93 to support the claim of MT, since "my word" seems forced and stilted; furthermore, prophecy is not the focus of the passage. Thus, MT's reading should be retained. (See above, 47; see also diss., 119.) -W~] > LXX T Many mss of both LXX and T support the reading ofMT, but textual analysis of each of the versions suggests that the original texts of the translations omitted the subordinating conjunction (see diss., 52, 64). Waltke and O'Connor give several examples of asyndetic relative clauses, though they note that such clauses are more common in poetry.52 No purely mechanical reason presents itself as a reason for the omission of ""1tR\ but one can readily suppose that a scribe might have added the conjunction, either accidentally or with the motivation of improving the style, so that the phrase corresponded with more typical prose usage. In light of these considerations, the reading of LXX and T will be preferred to that of MT. (Sec above, 47-48, 57-58; sec also diss., 124, 176.) ~ 1?] '11 LXX PT V Many commentators hav~ , oted that each of the prepositions '11 and ~is often used in contexts in which one would normally expect the other.53 This phenomenon could indicate either that the semantic fields of the two prepositions overlapped to some extent at the time of composition or during transmission, or that scribal errors have frequently crept into the text, perhaps because of aural ccnfusion. One would primarily suspect semantic overlap in areas or times of Aramaic influence (i.e., either in northern Israel or during the Persian period or 52Wahke and O'Connor, Introduction, 338. Cf. also Kautz.c;ch, ed., Ge.~enius'Hebrew Grammar, ?lSSf-m, where prose examples are given. 53E.g., S. R. Driver, Notes on the Books ofSamuel, 12: "There is a tendency. however, in these two books to use '11 and ~ interchangeably." Cf. also the discussion in Adair, diss., 249-50. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 94 later).54 BDB notes the interchange of ~and ,V in the books of Samuel, Kll'JgS, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, suggesting that the interchange in many cases is due to transcrib(~rs.55 The seemingly better semantic fit of~ during the preexilic period, combined with the possibiHty of scribal change during the period of transmission, suggests that this unit of variation may be related to the other textual problems associated with MT in Samuel. It seems preferable at this point, then, to adopt the text of LXX. (See above, 48; see also diss., 102, 138-39, 165, 189- 90.) 1!T':J ~] 1!T'::C LXX 11!T':l ,11\ LXXL (P T Vomit conjunction) The different prepositions in these tr.Jee variants suggest that whichever one was original, it was accidentally replaced by one of the others, perhaps after having dropped out altogether. Any of the prepositions could have been omitted by simple haplography, but the chances are slightly better that one of the two beths in the second variant might have been accidentally omitted when beth was written only once. Assuming that the original preposition dropped out, which preposition would a scribe have inserted in its place? Based on the context, either 'V or ~seemsa likely candidate. Thus, :Jis less likely to be a secondary insertion. Based on this evidence, then, 1!T'::C seems to be the most probable reading.56 (See above, 48-49, 60; see also diss., 102, 138-39, 165, 189-90.) "'mm] ""Dm LXX T V Imm cj S. R. Driver Though some commentators have argued that the construction in MT is a waw 54BDB notes the u!;e of "11 with the force of a dative by writers of the "silver age." i.e., the postexilic period; BDB. s.Y. "".u." 55BDB. S.v...~.. nole 2. 56The conjunction in the third variant restmctures the sentence. so that~ "m belongs with the passage that follows, rather than that which precedes. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 95 conjunctive with the perfect, referring to the past,57 it seems better to take it as a waw consecutive construction, refening to the future. The translators of P certainly understood their Vorlage, presumably the same as MT here, to refer to the future (or perhaps the present). The other secondary witnesses, however, all read the waw consecutive imperfect form, referring to past time. In fact, the variant in V is the only significant variant that remains after aU the other potential variants have been eliminated. If the reference is to past time, the most obvious point of reference would be 1 Sam 2:27-36, a passage that speaks of a prophet (literally, a man of God) delivering a message of judgment to Eli.? Since verse 12 refers to a prior message of judgment of which Eli is apparently already aware, one would also expect the present verse to do the same. If the reading ofMT were accepted, then the message given to Samuel would be new and unknown, but such is not the case. Of course, one could argue that the reading reflects an earlier stratum in the literary process, particularly since many scholars take 2:27-36 to be a late addition to the book. However, though an editor might not strive to make a verse inserted at one point match another some distance away, he would be more likely to work to make consecutive verses correspond. Thus, the reading of LXX, T, and V seems preferable to that ofMT at this point. (See above, 49, 58; see also diss., 107, 170, 193.) 117 -wN 11ro] U:J rnUOLXX 1117 -u.'N W" cj BHK REB NJB 1117 ~cj Wellhausen Although with some imagination it is possible to look at the two extant variants and fmd some similarly shaped letters in the Old Hebrew alphabet, it is doubtful if one variant arose from the other because of graphic confusion. It is possible that this unit ofvariation should be considered below along with several others as a possible instance of differences on a literary level. However, the differences here do not relate to repetition of similar elements in parallel constructions (or the lack thereof), as most of the others do. The variants seem unrelated to both the preceding unit of variation and to the next one, the tiqqun sopherim, which is also 57Hans Wilhelm Hertzherg, Die SamuelhUcher, 2d ed., Das Alte Testament Deutsch, edt Volkmar Hemtrich and Artur Weiser, vol. 10 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960).29. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 96 reflected in LXX. The two readings are not substitutional variants, for, though they correspond in position, they are not semantically equivalent. In fact, one could easily envision a conflate reading arising that read J1j' -wt\ U::1 1'10 Another possibility is that both variants are later, independent additions to a text that originally read simply 11lO The problem with the text ofMT as it stands is that, while not ungrammatical, it is certainly awkward, and the phrase .Err '1m'\ 1'lJ::l is unusual in that it follows the expression c:trIl1 '.11, an expression that usually ends a phrase.58 By rearranging the accents of MT, one could translate "I am judging his house forever because of sin, which he knew about, because his sons. . ." However, this rendering is still somewhat cumbersome. LXX avoids the awkwardness ofMT, but its reading is redundant, mentioning Eli's sons twice in a span of only a few words. BHK suggests replacing lU7:l with lIT, a SURQ ~stion followed by the translators of the Revised English Bible (REB) and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). Wellhausen suggests omitting 1UO and taking ~as a conjunction, thus joining the phrase l1T ~with the following clause.59 A corruption in the text is apparent, and it seems to have infected both Mf and LXX. Although Wellhausen's solution <:annot be ruled out, the graphic similarity between 111' and 1'~ combined with the fact that ~often follows 111" to form a kind of compound conjunction, suggest that the emendation of BHK may be preferable.60 (See above, 50; see also diss., 110, 122.) c:n?] C"~ tiq soph LXX The tiqqune sopherim J or scribal corrections, were primarily designed to preserve the dignity of God, especially by avoiding certain combinations of words that could be taken as disrespectful or blasphemous. Masoretic tradition records that C"'1'? in this verse was originally C"itJK, a reading both graphically similar and better suited to the context. Of the ancient -----~- 58MT does luwe an atJma1;J under 0:1111, hut it joins 1110with !rT~ indicating the dose connection of this phrase with what precedes. 59Wellhausen, Bucher Samuelis, 53. 6OCf. BDB, S.V., "lV." Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 97 versions, only LXX preserves the pre-eorrected reading, but that reading is undoubtedly the one to be preferred.61 (See above, 50; see also diss., 103.) 1:J?1] 1=1 ~'?1 LXX 1l:J? P V LXX has a different word division and an extra No The effect of this difference is to throw the phn~.se 1=1 l6'1 back to the previous verse, which in LXX ends, "and he did not rebuke them; and not only thus (or, and that is not a11)." l'6and "are occasionally confused (e.g., 1 Sam 2: 16; 20:2), and the present confusion probably also arose out of graphic or, more likely, aural confusion.62 Of these two variants, the reading of MT flows more smoothly and corresponds more closely to typical Hebrew idiom, so p? should be preferred to 'P l'6. As for the conjunction, which P lacks, the addition and omission of conjunctions is not uncommon in the ross of any of the witnesses, but the presence of the conjunction in both MT and LXX strengthens the case for the presence of the conjunction in the text that lay behind both of them, especially since they differ in other respects. Thus, the reading of MT should be preferred over that of LXX or P. (See above, 50, 55-56; see also diss., 103, 150.) rr:b] > 89 The failure of ms 89 to include rrj;J is probably the result of haplography caused by the similar ending on the preceding word (11lT.JU.l). Since the resulting sentence is grammatically anomalous, because of the loss of the nomen regens, the reading of the base text should be retained. 61 R. Althann, "Northwest Semitic Notes on Some Texts in 1 Samuel," Journal ofNorthwe!;t Semitic umguages 12 (1984): 28-29, proposes on the basis of Ugaritic evidence that "l/un can be understood as a by? fonn of 1m, parsed as the Illative participle of the root Ym, 'to inspire awe,' preceded by the emphatic lamed"." However, his analysis is not convincing. 6Z11lOugh most cognate languages also contain a negative in the fonn l~ the corresponding negative in . Ugaritic is spelled with a simple I; see Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, Analecta Orientalia, no. 38 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965),425 (Glossary, s.v. "I II"), Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 98 "'11 ~ iR\V:1"T rm -r::i1D n ~1'.lUI inir CT'::l mn?"1 1m m!j' -p:n '11 ':lKl~ ::J:1U" (3: 15) 'i':Jl'] > 70 The omission of 1p:nafter the preposition '1' leaves an obviously ungrammatical sentence, so the text of the majority of Masoretic mss should be preferred. ip:n] + ip::J:l t:etr, LXX According to MT, Samuel was sleeping one moment and opening the doors of the temple the next. Though not impossible, this sequence seems to lack a transitional element. That missing element is present in LXX, which includes the phrase~ e:::tU" after :::aT, -p:n '11 ?K1~. This phrase was probably omitted inadvertently as a result of parablepsis, specifically homoioteleuton, when the scribes eye skipped from 1'="to..,,:n It is possible that homoioarkton also played a role, since ::czr'is similar to c::::IZrt Therefore, the reading of LXX has a greater likelihood of being the older text. (See above, 50; see also diss., 122.) rm'7i] n'n p The difference between MT and P is probably the result ofgraphic confusion between the singular and the plural in Hebrew. If the Hebrew text at some stage used defective spelling more widely that MT does, the plural of the word in question would have been ntrT, and the only difference between this word and the singular form is the added nat the end of the word. An extra ncould have arisen as a result of dittography; on the other hand, a ncould have disappeared as a result of haplography. It is possible that a scribe might have seen the plural as an anachronism associated with Solomon's temple, as opposed to the single curtain of the sanctuary, but if so, he ignored the far greater problem ofSamuel's presence in the sanctuary near the ark. Though absolute certainty is impossible, it seems best to retain the plural reading of MT. (See above, 56; see also diss., 144.) Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 99 iiiiT'] cri"l?N LXXo The phrase iiliT rr:l is used consistently throughout Samuel and Kings, whether in reference to the sanctuary at Shiloh or to Solomon's temple. However, though i'TlIi'rT:J continues to predominate, C'~iT) Jj':J occurs with some frequency in 2 Chronides.63 This shift in the direction of substituting C'~formiT' later in Israel's history has already been touched lIpon above (p. 87). It is probable that C'~crept into the text here as a result of this postexilic tendency, so the reading of MT should be retained as earlier. (See above, 62.) ?'11 ~ iR\~~ rm .,.~m ~ ~~] ~0!1 ?'11 ~~ rm .,..~m n, LXXLI In'' ..".t1' ~ rnnn em i":liD LXXo These variants deal with the presence and placement of the subject of the main verb, ~1rJU. MT places the subject at the beginning of the clause, a perfectly acceptable position, although one might have expected a position immediately fonowing the verb l'I". LXXL puts the subject at the end of the clause, a position that is good Greek style but that stretches the limits of normal Hebrew style. LXXo omits the word altogether. Which of these, if any, predates the others? If one follows the rule that MT should be followed whenever no problem is evident, then MT should be followed. However, that approach has been considered and rejected (see above, 66-69; see also diss., 12). If one considers only the main reading of LXX, or perhaps occasionally one of the other secondary witnesses, the readings of LXXL and LXXo will also both be immediately rejected, since they represent revisions of LXX and thus, it could be argued, tertiary witnesses. But this approach has also been dismissed in favor of an approach that considers the historical development ofeach of the witnesses. In those places in which the Lucianic and hexaplaric recensions differ from both MT and LXX, they often apparently deviate in the direction ofHebrew texts that were extant at the time. The 63See 2Chr3:3; 5:14; 7:5; 15:18; 22:12; 23:9; 24:7, ]3,27; 25:24; 28:24bis; 31:l3, 21; 33:'1; 34:9; 35:8; 36: 18, t9. In most cases, the fonn used is O'~ rr~ with the article. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 100 varied positions, or absence, of ~rJUin these witnesses indicates the probability that the word is a later addition to the text-tradition, perhaps inserted marginally at first (whence LXXVs anomalous placement), then given a permanent place in the tradition at the beginning of the clause. If ~rJUwas not originally part of the text, it is possible that a scribe might have wanted to insert it so that the last noun in the previous phrase, m.,.., was not taken as the subject of the present clause, especially since the verb was ~,a verb not suitable for God. The reading of LXXO, then, will be accepted. (Sec above, 60-61, 62.) ~2?] > 1871 ~89 The sign of the defmite direct object is what one would expect in the present context, appearing as it does before i'IK"V.J1, Ull. :'~'iS good rf'-ason exists for its absence. No such reason appears forthcoming in this verse. Ms 187 omits it altogether, probably by simple haplography. Ms 89 has the preposition ~ instead, but this reading is surely an error, perhaps based both on graphic similarity with ~and on the occurrence of ~just two words later. The reading of the majority of mss will be retained here. "JJi1~, "J:J ~l'JO ""D'" ~IJO ~ "".t1 l'Q7' (3: 16) iT3\, 'ml1JO~ "'11 K1p"~ ~, ~IJO ~ "'.t1 ~P'" 89 174 T I~~~ "'11~, LXX All of the variants in verse 16 revolve around the introductory clause. Mss 89, 174, and T (cf. LXX) al1 read the preposition ~ instead of J"R(after K1"'l A survey of the verb ~in Samuel and Kings reveals that when the object of the verb is a person (as opposed to phrases such as ... ,~ t\Ij7, or C'i:Ji ~'), the prepositions ~ and" are used almost exclusively at the expense of~ though the latter does appear on rare occasion. Moreover~ every other occurrence of the verb in the present chapter is followed by one of the two former prepositions. It is likely, then, that ~is to be preferred to nK The question of the omission of K'l'" and the transposition of~, in LXX is somewhat more difficult. On the one hand, the double verb in MT is consistent with Hebrew style. On the other hand, the reason for the Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 101 omission of ~.".,and the transposition of -~, is not immediately evident. One possibility is that~,was omitted by simple haplography, leaving an awkward sentence, which a later S(..~be corrected by moving~t A similar scenario is that a scribe's eye skipped from "'.11in the preceding verse to ""1] in this verse, omitting ""lJ K1p"t When the resulting sentence was found to be nonsense, the verb -r.3'\" was moved to the beginning of the sentence and the subject ""lJ was reintroduced. It is always possible that ~, and i'3(l' are substitutional variants, only one of which was in the earliest form of the text, but the argument based on Hebrew idiom seems stronger. Thus, the reading of 89 174 T, which differs only slightly from MT, is to be preferred. (See above, 51, 58; see also diss., 102, 117, 122-23, 168-69.) ~ :TO," iT.Jl cr~ l' im11T' i'l:l "JI'J'J 1n:rT KI ~ T~ -ul~ U"1iT iTrJ '0('1 (3:17) :r~ -ul~ Uii1 ?:o i:n "JTD ;n:n i:n -u\] > 70 The omission of the phrase in ms 70 is the result of parablepsis, as the scribe's eye skipped from i:l"'IiT to Ui, omitting the words in between. The reading of the base text is preferable. -m::n l(I ~] ~ -m::n ~ 187 I irn]'1 l(I ~ p The delayed occurrence of the particle Kl in ms 187 is abnormal and almost certainly secondary, since KI 'mis what one would expect. The reading of P is more interesting. Instead of warning Samuel not to hide anything from him, in P Eli comforts him by telling him not to be afraid of him. Graphic similarity was clearly a factor in the confusion of 'T!I'land ""IiC'l, but which reading is the basis for the other? IfEli had wanted to tell Samuel not to be afraid, the more common way would have been to say, "nn~ In addition, Eli's wore:> of comfort in P are quickly contradicted by his threat of divine judgment if Samuel dres not .j him the contents of the vision. Furthermore, "~W -n:nat the end of the verse parallels this portion of the verse, implying that ""II"1:rT stood here. Thus, the reading of MT is to be Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 102 preferred. (See above, 56; see also diss., 140.) resulting reading could easily have gone Ui.'1LOnCea, since it makes good sense as it stands. Nevertheless. it is the reading of the majority of Masoretic ross that is preferable. i:m] C'i:niT 187 LXX P V The reading of rns 187-which is supported by LXX, P, and V-has a plural rather than a singular noun, since God spoke several words to Samuel. The singular in the majority ofHebrew mss should be taken as a collective noun and translated 64the message" rather than 64the word." The scribe of ms 187 (or his predecessor) altered the singular to the plural, perhaps inadvertently, in order to ensure that the reader did not think that God had spoken only a single word to Samuel. The plurals in the versions arose out of the need the translators felt to create idiomatic readings, and so they were not considered significant. The reading ofMT should be retained. T~] ~noLXX T~and -pnoare substitutional varinnts, since they play corresponding roles in their respective sentences. No apparent graphi\; sinillarity exists between the two variants, so some other reason for textual alteration must be sought. The phrase lJ'ROis somewhat cumbersome, but thoroughly Hebraic (cf. 1 Sam 15:14; 25:24; 2 Sam 7:22; 18:12; 22:7, etc.). It is more likely that a scribe would have substii:uted the colorless, though more literal. phrase T~for -p'ROthan vice versa.154 His (\150 V?'ssibk t.hat T~arose as a gloss on -P'RO, later to be inserted into the te:r.t. ir~~i,~, Ttt reading ofLXX probably reflects the earlier reading. (See above,:; '-52: see a~so diss., 121-22.) 64Cf. 1 Sam 1:23, where LXX also has the "more Hehraic" text, and Walters's discussion of this passage; S. D. Walters, "Hannah and Anna," 400. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 103 ,,] > LXX The excess text in MT could be an explanatory expansion, or the absence of the word in LXX could be the result ofhaplography. iII does usually occur with an indirect object introduced by '(or occasionally ~, but it also sometimes occurs without any indication of the object. It seems more likely that a scribe would have added "in keeping with the prevailing custom than that one would have omitted it for some son. Thus, the reading of LXX should be preferred. (See above, 52; see also diss., 119.) C'''~Tr] + ~-r 1 ' The demonstrative in ms 174 qualifies the noun C"1:I"Ii'Tand is almost certainly secondary. A scribe, perhaps subconsciously, apparently considered the sentence as it stood to be in need of clarification. The reading of MT should be retained. ~,] + "'.u LXX p Earlier in this verse it was MT that had an explanatory addition; here it is LXX. "'11 specifies the subject of the verb -0<'\ which might have been considered ambiguous since ~rJZ1was the last subject mentioned. Furthermore, since iiliT' immediately follows the verb, a scribe might have wanted to avoid the implication that it was God who was speaking. As is often the case with explanatory additions, this one appears to be secondary, and the text ofMT should be followed. (See above, 52; see also diss., 119.) ~i1] > 174 The omission of the pronoun ~iT after iTliT' is probably the result of haplography caused by the graphic similarity of the two words. The fact that the next word ::raTalso begins with it may have been a contributing factor as well. hl any case, the reading of MT is to be preferred. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 104 ~ 1-0' '=D "'~ N?'l 100 iT'i1 iiliT'1 ~r30 7i.l"1 (3: 19) iT'i1 iiiiT'll miT' "iT" LXX When Hebrew writers wanted to state the fact or express the wish that God would be with someone~ they would usually do so without recourse to a form of iri1; fOT example, 11'JlJ miT' (l Sam 16:18; 18:14)~ C'JU rn"Tl (Jdg 1:22), and so forth. When they did choose to use a form of iT'i1, they almost invariably placed it before the subject: 'l1'JU iThi' iri1":J (1 Sam 18:12); lrJl1 miT iT'in (2 Kgs 18:7); UrJU 1~"~ miT "iT' (1 Kgs 8:57); iTliT iTi1 "~ -po (Gen 26:3). The only exceptions to this latter rule are the present passage, 1 Sam 17:37, and 2 Sam 14:17. However, the LXX readings in both 1 Samuel passages put the verb first, and the context shows a great likelihood ofgraphic confusion. Only in 2 Sam 14:17 is the subject before the verb in both MT and LXX (and here LXX is kaige, not 00; the word order in LXXL is slightly different). What this evidence means for the current unit of variation is that, barring some compelling reason for putting the subject first, the verb should probably come first, followed by the subject. Thus, the reading of LXX will be accepted here. (See above~ 52; see also diss., 117-18.) N?~ N?LXXL The lack of a conjunction in LXXL could be the result of haplography triggered by the preceding 10n the end of 1I'JU. On the other hand, the extra conjunction in MT could be the result of dittography. Thf~ lack of a conjunction between clauses is unusual in Hebrew, and it serves to stress the following clause (cf. 3:2). However, verse 19 appears to have an intentional three-fold structure, which would be disturbed by the omission of the conjunction. In light of this observation, the reading ofMT will be retained. (See above, 61.) Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 105 miT'''] miT' rT':l174 I C"i'l?t6 P The reading in ms 174, miT' IT':J, probably derived from the reading preserved in MT by means of dittography and graphic confusion: K'::II'became IT':J K'::II" and the 'before mi' was dropped. The reading of the majority of Masoretic mss is preferable to that of ms 174. The reading preserved in P substitutes C'~forMT's miT. The phrase m7' K':J] occurs in several other passages in the OT, while ai1'it6 K':II is apparently not represented in MT. However, the relative scarcity of even the phrase miT" K'::II (between ten and twenty occurrences) urges caution. Perhaps the change from rn7 to C'~can be explained as another example of the tendency of later scribes to changeC"~ to m.i". In any case, the reading of MT should be preserved. (See above) 56-57; see also diss., 137-38.) iR\-m] + m)~ ~ 70 One of the most interesting readings in the Masoretic mss in 1 Samuel 3 is this apparent gloss in inS 70. Since the verse notes that the Lord continued to appear, a scribe probably confInned this statement by writing in the margin "to Manoah," a reference to Judges 13. Somehow the marginal note found its way into the text. Though clearly not original, it is a good demonstration of the phenomenon of glossing. 'E ~1JlJ~ miT' jf,1I.J] > 187 Ms 187's failure to render this phrase is probably the result ofparablepsis, the scribe's eye skipping from~ to 1E The~::lfollowing iI?L~and preceding the phrase under consideration somehow survived the parablepsis, or perhaps it was restored at some point in the process of transmission. The reading of MT is preferable. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 106 ,~] > 89 The omission of'~by ms 89 could be the result of parablepsis (homoioarkton) with the following word U'T.:l, or it might have dropped out accidentally for some other reason. The text of the majority of Masoretic mss should be retained. The reason for the duplication in ms 89 must be simple dittography, but the reason for the change in prepositions is less obvious. Graphic similarity may have played a role in the change, but it is just as likely that a scribe felt that :lwas a better fit for the context than ~ In any case, the reading of ms 89 is inferior. mii U'C] ''''Ui.J P The reading of P is probably derived from a Hebrew ms in which the divine name was abbreviated .... (or something similar). The abbreviation was mistakenly read as a pronominal suffix, changing the noun from singular to plural in the process. The reading of P makes even less sense than the reading ofMT, so MT's rendering should be preferred. (See above, 57; see also diss., 155-56.) miT' -c::lU ,~] > LXX I miT' i:n:l,~mss ,-edd V This unit of variation is discussed with the following one. (See above, 52; see also diss., 124-25.) iniT' 3?] + ,"J:11~ li'f "'111~ iUt rm~~".. "=' ?N miT" rn"m ~:IJ ~1JO la\" iniT .J~ o:m 17i'1 ,~ "~LXX I i111 1""1N'"~~ ?:l ~ miT' t\'~, rn"m 11'3\" ,"J:11 iW:J lJ'T ",m~ LXXL I~ i111'iW7~~ ".:1~ iniT' rn"m K':IJ ~7JO 1~' iniT' "Jd? [D"lj .trn ,~ ,,~ ,"J:11~ lPT ",m LXXO It is clear that a substantial disturbance has occurred in the witnesses in verse 21. The variants can be broken into two units, the first of which involves the omission in LXX of Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 107 several words that are found in MT, and the second of which concerns the addition of many words in LXX. Also related to these variants are the differences between MT and LXX in 4:la. These units ofvariation are clearly the most significant in the whole chapter in terms of the number of words involved, and the reason for this great difference must be considered. Scholarly opinion is divided over whether these differences are purely textual or whether they should be considered differences on the literary level. The fonner position is held by such people as Thenius, McCarter, and Klein.6S They attribute the differences in the witnesses largely to mechanical errors and later attempts to remedy those errors. Others, such as de Boer and the Committee for the Textual Analysis of the Hebrew Old Testament, take the latter position.66 They believe the additions in LXX to be drawn from other passages and to reflect a stage of the text prior to the settling of its final form. Thenius, Klein, and McCarter all assert that the shorter text of MT is the result of parablepsis, though the circumstances they envision are slightly different. All three would delete~ '11'1 f1N1~~ ?:J~ miT'" nr'm ~:JJ ~1JU 1~' as a variant of 3:20. Thenius would then add the first five words of 4:1 MT (missing in LXX), '7:b 'iKtrJU -r.:n"'iT' ~, followed by the rest of the long addition in LXX. He believes that a scribe's eye skipped from~ 7:b (4:1 MT) to ~.".. '11 (4: I LXX), resulting in the reading of MT. He posits a second parablepsis for another scribe, this time from ~1'.10 ?N(3:21) to ';J:b ~""1ZT (4: 1 MT), resulting in the reading of LXX.67 Klein believes that the words i:n:J ,m ~ 7:b ?mrJU -r.:n "JJ1 inii' in 3:21 and 4:1 MT are secondary, added to make sense of the text only after the loss of the original words. A scribe in the tradition ofMT skipped from ?mrJZ3(3:21 MT) to ~""'1U' "V (4:1 LXX).68 McCarter agrees with Klein in omitting'~ mii' 1:n:Jfrom 3:21 MT, but he keeps ?K1zr 7j:, ~rJU1:n "iT" in 4:1. The rest of his 6SThenius, BUcher Samuels, 17; McCarter, J Samuel, 97, 103; R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel. 30. 66De Boer, I Samuel i-xvi, 56; Barthelemy, ed.? Critique textuelle, 1:152. 61Thenius, Bacher SamueL\', 17. 68R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel. 30. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 108 proposal is the same as that of Thenius.69 De Boer and the members of the Committee believe that the differences between the two witnesses are literary rather than textual. De Boer says, "III 21b and IV la introduce the coming incidents and strengthen the bond between the youth history of Samuel and the stories to come."70 Barthelemy and the other members of the Committee state that none of the three additional clauses in Ok shows originality, but all are based on other passages (3:20; 4:15; 4:lff.). They say, "the fact that MT does not offer any joint between the two narratives that critics could recognize as literarily heterogeneous is a remarkable indication of its great antiquity."7l Which of these two disparate positions is more probable? If it were demonstrated that 1 Samuel LXX offers a text that differs from that ofMT on a literary level (see below, pp. 110-15), the case for a literary origin would be strengthened. Even so, however, the likelihood of mechanical error (parablepsis) tips the evidence in favor ofa textual solution for 3:21 and 4: 1a. The additional material in LXX does not seem to reflect any trend that has been noted elsewhere in LXX.72 In particular, the excess material present in the story of David and Goliath is preserved in MT, not LXX. The Committee's observation that the additional Greek clauses show no innovation is valid enough, but that fact in itself is insufficient reason for denying their place in the text, since threads of connection run back and forth in the nanative in both MT and LXX and, for that matter, in all narrative. In fact, one could argue just the opposite, that similar style and vocabulary supports the originality of the LXX additions (with the exception, of course, of the material repeated from verse 20). If the differences between LXX and MT in verse 21 are textual rather than literary, one 69McCarter, I Samue!. 97. 103. 71 Barthelemy, ed., Critique textuelle, 1: 152. 700e Boer, I Samuel i-xvi, 56. 7'2.Contra De Boer, I Samuel i-xvi, 56. It must be remembered that the translation technique of LXX has been found to be a literal one, and any differences from MT on a literary level would have arisen in the Hebrew Vorlage. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 109 must decide which version contains a witness to the earlier form of the text or whether neither completely preserves it. It is immediately obvious that the phrase iT1iT~ ,?zT.:1is problematic. The different spelling of "Shiloh" in the same verse is unusual, though not unprecedented, and both ~and ,';tDappearfrequently enough in Samuel. Moreover, the repetition of "Shiloh," though perhaps redundant to modem ears, seems to accord well enough with Hebrew idiom, so this word, at least, should probably be retained. More difficult is the phrase miT -c-c, whose exact meaning is unclear. Some witnesses read ini' ""'I:T"T:l, but this reading cannot be considered a significant variant in any of the witnesses; furthermore, it helps very little, since the phrase remains awkward and unnecessary. It is possible that the circumstances that disrupted the text have left a fragment of a lost sentence that would have made sense, but it seems best in light of the extant evidence to dismiss this phrase as secondary, though its origin remains obscure. Although Klein omits the first five words of 4:1, they seem natural enough in the context, and provide a fitting conclusion to the story in chapter 3: Samuel has moved from boy ministering to Eli in the sanctuary to man bring the word of the Lord to all Israel. That this phrase is more fitting as a conclusion to chapter 3 than as an introduction to chapter 4 is made clearer when the long addition in LXX is analyzed. In MT, chapter 4 begins with the note that Israel went out to fight the Philistines. The story as it concerns Eli comes to its primary conc1usion in 4:18 with the death of Eli and the statement that he had judged Israel for forty years. Verses 19-22 form a sort ofappendix to the story, tying it in with the further adventures of the ark in the following chapters. Commentators see the notice in verse 18 that Eli had judged Israel for forty years (LXX: twenty years) as a Deuteronomistic attempt to fit Eli into the pattern of the judges in the book of Judges.73 This conclusion to the story accords wen with the introduction to this pericope in 73Cf. Henry Preserved Smith, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book'f ofSamuel. International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899),36; McCarter. JSamuel. 114-15. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 110 LXX, detailing once again his age (cf. 4: 15) and his sons' sin (cf. 4:11, 17). Furthermore, LXX's introduction to the circumstances of the battle ("And it came about in those days that the Philistines assembled themselves to fight against Israel") meshes well with the following notice ("and Israel went out to fight against them"), in contrast to the abrupt start of the narrative in MT ("and Israel went out to fight against the Philistines"). Thus, it is likely that the long addition in LXX, with the exception of the repetition of the material from verse 20, represents the older text.74 (See above, 52-53; see also diss., 124-25.) Variants That Pertain to the Question QfMultiple Utenu:y Editions The time has arrived to discuss the variants that bear upon the question of different literary versions in 1 Samuel 3. It has already been concluded that the variants in verse 21 are ofa textual rather than literary nature, but this decision does not prejudice the case against <....~ the variants to be considered here. Differences in the story of David and Goliath that probably depend on literary differences have already been noted. Walters has argued that 1 Samuel 1 also contains evidence of different literary editions in MT and LXX, though not all concur. Cook has decided against a literary solution to the differences between MT and LXX over the differences in 2:11 and the placement of the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2.75 Before examining the variants in chapter 3, a couple ofmethodological question must be answered. First, what are the criteria for identifying a different edition of the text? Is a large number of variants sufficient grounds for concluding that different editions exist, or must identifiable patterns ofvariation exist? In the first place, a distinction must be made between 74A comment on the material that parallels verse 20 is in order at this point. It is likely that these words are a textual alternative to verse 20 that was misplaced at some point in the tradition. Which of the versions is earlier? The key to deciding lies in the phrases JJ:ID ilO 1111 Tn in MT and~ 1111 "("lK1~ in LXX. Both phrases occur in MT, but only the former appears in Samuel and Kings (2 Sam 3:10; 17: 11; 24:2, 15; 1Kgs 5;5), while tbe latter is jimited to Deuteronomy and Jeremiah (Dent 13:8; 28:64; Jet 12:12; 25:33). On this basis, it is probable that the version found in MT is preferable to that in LXX. LXXL, and LXXo. 75See above. 69-73. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 111 significant and nonsignificant variants. Ifall apparent variants are considered, V has more deviations from MT in I Samuel 3 than any of the other secondary witnesses. However, when nonsignificant variants are eliminated, V contains only one significant variant (3:13), and that supported by LXX and T. Even when only significant variants are considered, the answer to the question is still not obvious. To try to reach a conclusion by comparing two witnesses to a text, one of which had many deviations from the arbitrarily chosen base text and the other of which did not, would be begging the question. Instead, two analogies may be considered. The first one concerns the development of two daughter languages from a single parent language, such as Spanish and Portuguese from Latin. As the history of the two languages is studied historically, their divergence grows as the temporal distance from the parent language increases. Thus, a large number of variants in a particular witness from a base text may indicate the passage of a great deal of time in separate text-traditions rather than the existence of separate editions. The second analogy involves a comparison of texts which have a common origin but are admittedly different literary editions. If the parallel passages ofKings and Chronicles are compared, one immediately notes a number of differences in the texts, most of which are due to the authors of Chronicles, who had particular historical interests, theological stances, and pastoral concerns (to use an anachronism), all ofwhich are reflected to a large extent in the differences between the texts. Therefore, one should onlyclaim to find a different literary edition when certain parrerns ofvariarion exist in a witness.76 The second methodological question is this: if different editions do exist, is one to be preferred as the older set of readings (and how can the older edition be identified?), or should each reading or group of readings be examined independently?77 The answer to this question -----~ 76Cf. Tov's comment in Textual Criticism ofthe Hebrew Bible, 314: ..It is assumed tbat large-scale diften::nces displaying a certain coherence were created at the level of the literary growth of the books by persons who considered themselves actively involved in the literary process ofcomposition." 771t l;hould he rernt:me~redthat the target selected for this text-eritical investigation was the oJdest possible text. Given a demonstrated multiple literary edition, other textual critics might prefer the edition that centains the latest !iet of variants, arguing that the latest form represents the completion of the canonical process Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 112 may seem paradoxical, but it is nevertheless the correct one. One edition may be preferred as containing the older readings, but each reading or group ofreadings should still be examined independently. The reason for examining readings in the later edition is that it may on occasion preserve older readings that have disappeared from the older edition. Thus, the Lucianic edition of LXX, though overa.lllater than OG, sometimes preserves older readings, derived either from the Hebrew mss toward which it was corrected or preserved directly from OG when all typical OG witnesses are corrupt. It is also possible for late readings to creep into a generally older text, so evaluating each set ofvariants is imperative. Once a pattern of revision and a relative chronological order has been established, the older edition should be preferred whenever revision is apparent. The older edition should also be preferred when literary causes for variation are suspected but neither reading is demonstrably older. Having detennined guidelines for detecting the existence ofmultiple literary editions and choosing readings among them, it is time to turn to the set of readings in 1 Samuel 3 that concern Yahweh's repeated call of Samuel. The readings are as follows. (3:4) '::Jma1 ~] (?';:lmoo ~1f.3u 4QSama I ~1'.3!1 ~1J!J LXX (3:5) -f,r'] :JO"i LXX (3:6) ~1'.1t1 10 ] + ~1'.1t1 LXX (3:9) .,,] :lW LXX (3: 10) ?m1JO ~r.E] > LXX A comparison of these variants may perhaps be appreciated better by graphic means. They 'liay be divided into two groups: those that deal with the number oftimes God calls Samuel and those that treat Eli's command and Samuel's response. Call 1 is found in 3:4-5, cali 2 in 3:6? 7, call 3 in 3:8-9, call 4 in 3: 10 (in part). The last call, of course, differs from the others in that God continues speaking to Samuel, so only the first chart, dealing with God's call of as accepted by one or more faith communities. Thus, Ulrich says, "The texts were authoritative texts, and through the traditioning process they were being made more authoritative~; Ulrich, "Canonical Process and Textual Criticism," 289. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 113 Samuel, contains data from all four calls. The textual decisions decided upon above are integrated into the texts of MT and LXX (which is presented in retroverted form) in order to highlight the possible literary differences.78 CHART 1 God's Call of Samuel MT (corrected) LXX (retroverted and corrected) CaB I ;m/JU~ iTliT' ~, ;m1']U ~7]D i'TIt. ~, Call 2 ~r,]ZJ K'V' i11i'r ~, ~~~ K1"" i'TIt"T rp'" Call 3 mtuc ~rz ~"'i' iTliT rp" m.twJ ~rJU ~ ;-n,,.. rp" Call 4 ~~~"ij71 ~rr, miT ~., CL-:D cu::c l\v' zrr, miT lO" ~rJU ~'rJU CHART 2 EI i's Command and Samuel's Response MT (corrected) LXX (retroverted and corrected) CaB I :IE"1 171 :::0!1 ~~ :czr, :szr, :co :rm Ca112 :J:lU :J'1~ :J:]U :l"RU Call 3 101i'tD Dr1 r,~OO "., ... D1 " Dr1 ~OU 171 ?.? "J~ ~ :::l'I21 1rJ'lj'TD These charts reveal two things about LXX in comparison with MT. First, neither is more prone than the other to schematize. Second, the variation~between MT and LXX are not theological, nor do they affect one's perception of any of the characters in the narrative.79 On the contrary. although the variants are somewhat denser in these verses than elsewhere in the 78For a discussion of these variants as a group from the standpoint ofwhether or not they are significant on the basis of literary analysis, see diss., 218-19. 79111Us. Walters's contention that LXX presents some characlet'S differently from MT finds no support in chapter 3, though, of course, his evaluation of chapter 1 is not lilereby negated. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 114 chapter, they appear rather trivial. Does some other explanation exist to explain the number of variations in these verses? A comparison with the texts of the gospels reveals that in parallel passages, scribes of one gospel often alter their texts in the direction of another of the Gospels (cf., e.g., Matt 17:1-9 and parallels in Mark and Luke, with eighteen variants attributed to contamination from other gospels in a space of nine verses; and Matt 13:1-9 and parallels from Mark and Luke, with fifteen such variants).80 Thus, the sheer repetition in 1 Sam 3:4-10 may account for the variants (note also the variants in these verses that were not deemed preferable, many of which are based on similar verses in the section; see especially the Masoretic mss). Therefore, the data in 1 Samuel 3 does not support the existence of separate literary editions in MT and LXX, though it must be pointed out again that the data speaks only for the present chapter and not for any other chapter or for the book as a whole. Which of the variants listed above are to be preferred then as the oldest variants, and on what basis? As noted previously (p. 44), the ~in the phrase?K1~'::!Kin 3:4 MT may be the remnant of a missing ?K1/JO, which is in fact present in LXX. In the second call, one could argue either that the missing ~lJUin MT resulted from haplography or that the extra one in LXX resulted from dittography. Of these two choices, haplography is probably somewhat more likely, though no certainty can attach to such an evaluation. In the fourth call, a perusal of other occurrences of eue.:c ct.m in the OT reveals that the phrase is generally used in order to avoid repetition. However, MT contains precisely such repetition. It is probable, then, that the omission of ~TJO ~/JOin LXX is the older reading. In fact, it is possible that the two? fold repetition of the name in verse 10 MT supports the two-fold repetition in verses 4 and 6, though not much weight can be attributed to this argument. In the variants related to Eli's command and Samuel's response, it is LXX (or rather its Vorlage) that seems to be schematizing. It has been determined already that schematization is ---------- 8Dnte statistics are taken from Kurt Aland, 00., Synopsis QUlllluor Evangeliorum, nth ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibeigesellschaft, 1985),236-39, 174-75. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 115 not characteristic of LXX in the chapter, but some harmonization between verses is not ruled Ollt. The three-fold DJ 3 in LXX contrasts with the pattern ::c:w 3, ::c:m 3, ::CU" in MT. MT alsv reads 17' twice in the three calls, whereas LXX does so only once, in the third call, which is separated from the command DJ~by several words. In these units of variation, the readings of MT are preferable. Conclusions Before the textual decisions are presented in the fonn of a critical text in the next chapter, a few general conclusions may be drawn from the data. First, no single witness contains an overwhelming majority of older readings. though, in general L2TITls, it is clear that MT and LXX are the most important witnesses to the text in this chapter. In fact, LXX is CHART 3 Comparison of MT with Other Witnesses Other Witness Mf LXX 20 13 P 0 10 T 3 1 V 1 0 LXXL 0 2 LXXo 1 4 OPH 0 3 mss 2 27 tiq soph 1 0 4Qt 1 1 cj 1 NA Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 116 preferred to MT more often than vice versa when they are in conflict. A comparison ofMT with each of the other witnesses yields interesting results. In Chart 3, the significant variants in the other witnesses are compared one by one with MT on the basis ofwhich reading was taken to be preferable. The first column contains the statistics of the witness other than MT, and the second contains MT's statistics. In addition to abbreviations discussed earlier, cj will be used for conjectures (the figure in the cj row is the number ofconjectures accepted; no comparative data from MT is given). A second conclusion arrived at on the basis of an analysis of the data is that witnesses generally regarded as of little importance for textual criticism do sometimes have superior readings. Nowhere is this fact more obvious that in verse 15, where the reading of LXXo, supported in part by LXXL, is chosen over that of MT. Both T and V occasionally have superior readings, though, perhaps surprisingly, P does not. 4QSama is too fragmentary in the chapter to be of much use, but one reading supported by this ms was preferred over MT. The twenty-seven times that Ms Bl9a (BHS) prevails over the other Masoretic mss evaluated in this study shows the quality of B19a, but the two times that the other mss have the better reading are reminders that BHS is not equivalent to MT. Finally, the importance of considering conjectures is stressed by the preference for one of them in verse 13. One last conclusion should be noted. The usefulness of external evidence in evaluating readings was discussed above, where it was concluded that internal evidence should receive primary consideration. However, external evidence continues to play some role in textual decisions, particularly when internal evidence fails or is ambiguous. Thus. if two equally acceptable readings are found in MT, LXX, P, and T on the one hand, and another in LXXL on the other, the reading of those witnesses that general)y bear witness to an older text will take priority. This contention is particularly true when the divergent witness is one of the Masoretic mss. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za CHAPTER 3 A CRITICAl, EDITION OF 1 SAMUEl. 3 This critical edition of 1 Samuel 3 is arranged on the page in the following manner. At the top is the critical text itself, as reconstructed on the basis of the evaluations in the previous chapter. It should be stressed once again that the evaluation of the evidence of the various witnesses, particularly the secondary witnesses, requires a study of the translation technique of each witness. Thus, this critical text is not really useful apart from the commentary in chapter 2, which is based in tum on the results of my dissertation. Each verse begins on a separate line in this edition, except 3:21 and 4: la, which are joined The presentation ends with the pericope in 4: la, before the record of the armies going out to battle begins. Immediately below the text is the first apparatus, which contains the readings of the Hebrew witnesses and retroverted secondary witnesses. Only those units of variation that are supported by significant variants in one or more of the witnesses are cited, though nonsignificant witnesses will sometimes be listed as well, in smaller print. In every unit of variation recorded in the apparatus, the readings of MT, 4QSam8 (when extant), LXX, P, T, and V will be cited whenever they are significant or agree with either the base text or a significant variant. They will not be cited if their evidence is ambiguous. It should be remembered that witnesses that agree with MT have not been deemed significant or nonsignificant, so the value of their support may be minimal. Other witnesses are cited as needed. Below the frrst apparatlls is the second apparatus, which contains the readings of the secondary witnesses in their original languages. The reference numbers in the first apparatus correspond to those in the second. Secondary witnesses are cited in the second apparatus in the order presented in the fIrst apparatus (except for omissions, for which no indication is 117 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 118 given in the second apparatus), separated by the double dagger '*'. Tertiary witnesses will not be cited in their original languages, since these witnesses are primarily witnesses to the texts of the secondary witnesses. Sometimes it is necessary to cite the same passage from a secondary witness in two different units of variation; in order to avoid needless repetition in these cases, an arrow ' t ' will be used in the second reference to refer the reader to the previous unit of variation. The arrow'+-' , followed by a Hebrew phrase (all in parentheses), means that the evidence cited from one of the versions represents ? slightly different group of words than that given as the Hebrew equivalent. This sign win o1'.ly be used in cases where the translation makes it impossible to avoid recording extra data without mutilating the words (cf. v. 13, P). In the two apparatuses, the chapter and verse are given, followed by the variant reference number, which begins again at one for every verse (with the exception of 3:21 and 4:1a, which are considered together). Variants in the same verse are separated by a bullet 'e'. 1 SAMUEL 3 31'i:J 1,m T'~ t:nii C'D"::l2V iT'il iiiiT' .,:rn 1"".11 "J:J';I ,i'niT' rm rilZJO~~ .,miT! (3:1) 5rn~, 4?':J1" 3ro 2rni7:l 1,'::m u"m,~ :I:tZ1 ""m ~iIiT [J1":J "iT, (3:2) (3: 1) 1 ",11 MT TV] + liOi LXX P ? 2 'i" iT'i1 miT' MT LXX TV] iT'iT 1'" miT' P ? 3 1'i::l LXX] 1"'"DI MT (3:2) 1 "m MT LXX P T] > 89 e 2 miO MT T] "':0 LXX p e 3 N'? MT TIDS!'] t\~' 187 LXX P T IDSS V itrns ? 4 ,:n" MT LXX P T V] ,?:r\" 187 LXXIDSS e Sm~, MT LXX (3:1) 1 T: '?JJ :j: V: Heli +LXX: HAel 'tou U:PE(J)~ +P: rUlTb ~ ? 2 LXX: KUpwt) TlV 'tlJ.1.tOV :j: T: 'UJ i11il '1'1 +V: Domini erat pretiosus :j: P: r(Clm =w... rGi:'n:\ ? 3 LXX: OUXO''tEAAoucra (3:2) 1 LXX: "p~c(v"to :j: P: ,u :j: T: il~'''~? 2 T: .'ilJTJi;? :j: LXX: J}apuvEcr8cu :j: P: _':i..n... ? 3 TUlSs: ~, +LXX: Kal aUK :j: P: ,...eCl :j: T: ~'1 +V: nee? 4 LXX: l1ouveX'!o :j: P: Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 119 5.4C'm~ l"~ 00~ 3,2':o'iT.J:OO ~rJ01 i'C:T' CTO lC'~ -0, (3:3) ~~j1 iO('" l~r]O ~r]OmiT Kl'" (3:4) :t::1!T, 2j:r' :cD ::lilJJ 1~~~~, ~, Im'l' ~:;:) '3j1 "'0('" ..,v~ 1"i' (3:5) ~, rmp ~:l"3Ji16i1';1('1 s~,v ~ -,71 4~1JU q7' 3~1J1J2~1J1J1~miT "P" (3:6) 8:cu :::rm3 7"rnrIi' ~ ~, P TV] n1Ni, miD 70 (3:3) 1 C'~ MT LXX V] m;T P ? 2 "iT.J MT LXX P TV] rr:c LXXO 96 ? 3 '=riC LXX 4QSamavi"] + iTliT' MT P TV? 4C"~ 1'~ co~MT LXX P T V I > 4QSamavid ? 5 C'~ MT] C'~-, 89 (3:4) 1?N1r.1t1 'm1rE LXX} ~r.1t1 ~MT P T V I [?~1JO ~1f.3u 4QSama (3:5) 1 ~ril\-'P MT P T V] + ~J:l70mg pmss itmss I + -p 187 I + 1mLXX I + "or + 1m pmss ? 2 ,.,-, MT P T V] :I!T' LXX (3:6) 1 ~..".., miT LXX] "V~ iiliT MT T V I~ miT' ".u P I ~-p "V iilii' LXXL. 2 '?mr.1t1 MT LXX P TV] + ~JJi1 i~' 70 ? 3 '?mrJO ~r.1O LXX] 'ml,TJ!] MT P TV? r 89 187 LXX I t;'1174 ? 5 ~"v MT P T V] + rrm LXX ? 6 i~' MT LXX P T V] '0\1 70 ? 7 ~rnMP 70] ~J~ ~rn\'PMT P T I '1"N ~J"R\-p LXX ? 8 ::c!1 MT LXX P T V] + :czr, .",.., + whole verse (repeated) 70 (3:7) 1 C"~ LXX] miT' MT P V ? 2 ~~, LXX] mJ~ C""C'1 MT P V ? 3 miT' i:rT ,~~ MT LXX P TV] ,~ iT1iT' Ui LXXL (3:8) 1 ~." MT LXX P T V] + 1111 70 LXXo ? 2 q"'" MT LXX P T V] + ';ImrJU 174 (3:9) 1 i~' LXX] ~rJtJ? ~".u ..,~, MT P T (Vomit ',.0) I ')mIJU ~ ~".u ""Dt', 70? m..cD1 rGb'J ::JCl~ *LXXL. ",)pto<; ?'t\ "aAeCJ(ll ? 2 LXX: l:aJ.10ullA :j: P: Lr pTlIl3-O;?K\IjO~' 2C11!D~ 1K"V' ~rr, m, KJ" (3:10) '''Jm "I'U] iD"m ,mu 2'7.:J ~:J 1-0' iWV ":OK mil ?moo~ rn, ~, (3: 11) i'ft)1 'm 2'1lT':l:J "m:n~ ':r.:l J1K "'11 1,.11~~ KIm et":J (3:12) co i"Ii'T.:I ~, '''J:J3C"~i~ ":::J 2v-r ""1Zm 11T' o7IV'V 'IrT":l rm "JK em ~" l"mm (3:13) 2 " MT P TV] :J'W LXX ? 3 ::et1 MT P T V] + "J:J LXX ? 4~ iTiTl MT LXX T] ~ P ? 5 ~ MT T] ":::J Tms 1.45 182? 6m~ MT LXX T]~ P (3:10) 1 ~"'j7' MT P T V] " ~.".., LXX? 2~ LXX] + ?K1/'E ~~ MT P TV? 3 UiMT LXX T Y] + miT' LXXo LXXmlls p vmss ami (3:11) 1 ,:1, MT P T V] ",:n LXX ? 2 ~ LXX T] ':r.:l~ MT P V (3:12) l'V LXX P TV] ~ MT" 2 1rT'~ LXX] '1l'T':l ~ MT I '1l'T':l ,m LXXL (P TV omit conjunction) (3:13) 1 "T.m LXX TV] "miTl MT P I miT! cj S. R. Driver? 2 1JI -.uK 11T' cj BHK Samuhel? 2 P: ~ \ :I: T: 7'r~ :I: V: vade :I: LXX: aVaatpEq>E ? 3 P: ~;, :I: T: ::llJU :I: V: et donni :I: LXX: Kat lCa8EUbE tEKVOV ? 4 LXX: Kat Eatat EaY :I: T: Dl{ 'il'l :j: P: -.r 89 (3:15) I1p:n MT LXX P T V] > 70? 2 ipJ:J c:m"" LXX] > MT P TV? 3 rnrtri MT LXX TV] n':r1 P ? 4 miT MT LXX p] C'~ LXXo ? 5 em MT T] > 187 I~ 89 ? 6 ",,0 ~ iR\IrJ"'T nN j'~im n1 LXXO] "'.u ~ iR\"ir.I1~ j'JilO In' ?Kv:Jzn MT LXX P T V I ~1JZ' "'11 ~ in\fST nN j'jilO n, LXXL (3:16) 1 i0\1 ~oo ~ "l;:1.u~, 89 174 T] i0('1 ~au rm "'.u 1\f"'1 MT T"J5!i I~, ") ? 2 P: "'nm .\...:t..:'1 r:1cu...::J :j: T: .1l1'l l'J1nJ :j: V: propter iniquiratem eo quod nowrat* LXX: EV OOlKl(W; utUlV auto\)? 3 LXX: 9EOV:j: P: ~m :j: T: 11i1? :j: V: indigne agere (- (3:14) I T: l'JJl :j: LXX: KCU ouO OUtC!X; :j: P: rom~ :j: V: idcirco? 2 LXX: to) OlKOO :j: P: ~:t.l *T: n'J? :j: V: domui (3:15) I LXX: 1tPOlt :j: P: r 70? 2"1n:rT N:l ?N MT LXX TV] N:l -m:n ~ t 87 I ii'ET1 KI ~ P ? 3 "JrD "Tl:n CK ~O, .. i01 cri1?N " i1U1T' iC MT LXX P T V] > 70 ? J i:m MT T] Cl"i:JTT 187 LXX P V ? 5 -pno LXX] T?N MT P T V (3: 18) 1 i.::'" LXX] " ~'" MT P TV? 2 cr1:J1iT MT LXX P T V] +~ 174 LXXms ? 3~, MT TV] + "'17 LXX p" 4 ~i1 MT LXX P TV] > 174 (~: 19) I iTI~ "iT" LXX] ~i1 miT' MT P TV? 2 K?'l MT LXX P T V] ~ LXXL HAn npo<; LCXIlOUTlA. (~: 17) 1 LXX: 'to ACXAT\8ev :I: P: ;:"1'<:1 :I: T: ?~?lJl :I: V: quem locurus est? 2 LXX: ~Tl on. ICpU'I"1<; :l: T: ~OJn lJJJ ~7 :I: V: oro te ne celaveris :I: P: a..m..:::J ~ rd ? 3 LXX: "Ca.&: rtot11O'CX1 am ? eeo~ Kat 'tcxoe 1tpocr8etT\ eav KpU'JIT1<; a1t EIl0,\> :I: P: ~ :\..:ll..J ~m ~ ~n..1 ~mCl r 187 P ? 3,~ cj] > 187 LXX I iTliT" 1:n:::l,~MT T V I '''Ui:l ,?l1.:l P I i:rD iTliT 89 ? 4 ~-ur ';t:h ~rJU u; "iri MT P T V I ',:) ~ mil"" m"m K'::D ~rJU l~' i'nG'i.t1' fiWt ~""O ~-ur LXX I~ i.t1' ,,.,m~~ ',:) ~ mil"' t\:o, nr'm l~' LXXL I~ jlJ ji~ i1~~ ?::l ~ iTlil"' rn"m K'::D ~1'.3U 10\' LXXO ? 5 lpT ",.111 iT1ir "j~ L:DTl .t1i'1 ,j,jr .".,., "':1:11 1N:j LXX I> MT P T V (3:20) 1 LXX: 'to) KUptO) :j: V: Domini :j: P: rC; aKprov :l: LXXO: Kat EmO'tEUel1 LaJlOUllA. 1tpo'tOC; 'tou 9EOU. (4) Kat ?KaAeOev KUptOC; l:aJ.lOUT\A.l:aJ.LOUTlA.? Kat ?t1tEV loou Eyro. (5) Kal ?OPCXJ.lEV 1tpOC; HA.Et Kal ?l1tEV loou ?"(c.o, on KEKl..TlKa.c; J.lE? 1ml El1tEV au KE1CATlKa aE' c:xvacr'tPE autOu. (10) Kat llABEV KUptOC; Kat Ka'tE ott EKOtKCO E)'ffi 'tOY ourov autou fro<; moovoc; i:.\i aOtKlatC; U1IDV CXUtOU, ott K HA.e:t Et E~tA.acsellO'Etat aOtlCtCX QtKO'\} 1-lA.E1 EV BUlllCXJ.latt Kat EV 9umatc; eeoc; CXtrovoc;. (15) xat Kotll HA?t. (16) Kat Et1tEV lUEt npoe; UxJ.l0'\}llA kaflOUllA tEKVOV' Kat Et1tEV [OOU eyro. (17) Kat El.1tEV Tt 'to pT1J.UX'tO AaAT]9EV 1tpOC; m:; J.lll 01llCpm.j1T1C; ax EJ.lOU? 'tOOE 1tOl.lloal. oOt 0 9EOC; Kat'tabE npoCJ8Etll, ECXV Kpu'VI1c; a1t ElloU PllJ.la EK 1tCXVtrov tIDV AOj'OOV 'tCllV AaATleEVtCllV EV 'tOte; rocnv erou. (18) Kat a1tT1"fYEtA.Ev Uxf.l0UllA nwtac; 'tOUc; AOYOUC;. Kat OUK expu\jIEv ax aUtOu' Kal EtXEV HA.et KuptoC; au'toe;' to aya90v EVromOV au'tou 1tOlTlCSEl. (19) Kat Ef.lEyaAuv911 UxIlOUllA. Kat llV lCUptoc; IlEt au'tou. Kat OUK E1tECSEV axo 1tavtCOV nov au'tou E1tl tTlV "fTlv. (20) Kat E"{VCO<; aKpc.ov. Kat HA.e:t XPECSJ}Utll<; mpoopa. Kat ot UtOl au'tou 1tOpEUOJ.lEVOl E1t0PEUOVtO. Kat xovllpa 11 000C; au'tcov EVffi1tLOV lCUptoU. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 127 Tar~um The 'l:~onstructedarchetypical text of T is identical to that of Sperber in all but verses 2 and 10, which are given below. "1nlJ ~ 7"J" ~ 71 "i1JD? n~".,~ "i11PJJ1 i1"1n~J. :rJU "7J11 ~mi1 ~D1"J. illill (3:2) "1~ ~'?D ?~1011 'ON1 '~1O(] '~1D(] lDlJ 101J ~'P1 'nJln~l"r '?m~l (3:10) ,1JJI JlD(] LucianicRecension LXXL differs from LXX in every verse except ~erse 2, a total of forty-nine deviations. Furthermore, Paul de Lagarde's edition ofLXXL is not totally accept.able~ since he fails to include a critical apparatus of variant readings and because he sometimes prefers the reading of one (and on one occasion none) of the primary Greek witnesses to LXXL (b0C2C2) to that of the other three) Inasmuch as the text accepted as Lucianic in this thesis differs from Lagarde's in eight places, and since his edition is somewhat difficult to find, the entire text of 1 Samuel 3 is given below. (3: 1) Ken to 1tataapwv 1:UJlOU11A nv AEttOUpYOuv tID lCUptro EVromov RAEt tOU l?PE~' Kat PllJ.la lCUplOU T\V tlJ.llOV ?V 'tat<; 11J.1Epal<; ElCE1VW;, OUK l1V opam.<; OtCW'tEA.A.OUCfa. (2) Kat EjI?VE'tO EV 'ttl 'l1J.lEpa E1C?tvl1 Kal HAEt EKaSEU&V EV 'to) 't01tO) au'tO\), Kat ot Ovato f3AE7tEtv' (3) KUt 0 A:UXVO~ 'tou SEOU 1tptV " KCI'taCfKEUaa9Tlvat, Kat Uxp,OUllA. EKaOEU&:V EV to) vam 1CUplOU OU TlV 11 Kt~O>'to~ tou aEOU. (4) Kat Ka:tEG't11KClt EKw..eCfEV KUplOC; fuJlOUllA. lliJloUl1A: Kat Et1tEV loou Eyro. (5) Kat ?OPCXJ.1EV 1tpO~ HAEt KCXt ?t1t?V lOOt> Eyro. ott lCEKAllKW; /lE' 0 & Et1t?V Ou KEK~:rlK(l aE' UV(lCJ'tp?q>E Kal KaS?uSE, t?1CVOV. Kcn aVECf'tp?\VEV KCXl EKa6EU&:V. (6) Kat 1tPOCfE6?'to 1CUpto~ E'tl KaA..?O'CXl 'tOV 1Paul de Lagarde, Librorum Veleris Testamenti Canoniconlm. vol. 1 (Gottingen: Aedibus Dieterich, Arnold Hoyer. 1883). Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 128 UXJ.loullA Kal EKaA.?vat tOV 9EOV Kat 1tptv " U7t01aIA.uql9Tlvat Plllla KUpl.OU 1tpOe; autov. (8) Kat 1tpOOE9EtO KUptOC; KaA.taat I:CXJlOUllA. UxlloU11A EV tpttW? Kat I:aJ,LoullA AvumpE. Kat E1tOpEU9T\ !aJ.1.0UTlA Kat ElCOtJ,l11ell EV to> t01tro autOl>. (10) KCU l1A9Ev KUptOc; Kat K 1tOtO> ta PTlJlctta floU EV IcrpallA COOtE 1tavtoc; aKoUovtoe; (tuta, 11X11O'E1 aJ1. (12) EV tll l1J.LEpa EKEtvll E1tE'YEPro Em HA.Et1taYtfl. ocra EA.aA.l10(X Kat E1tt toy OtKOV autou, ap~oJ.Lat Kat O'UvtEA?am. (13) Kat aVTlyy?tA.a. autOl ott EK01Km tj'Ol Em 'tOV OlKOV autou tOll; auoVoe; EV aSlnate; UtON autOu ale; tyvO), on K, Ken OUK Evou9EtEl autOue; Kal oUX ou'tox;. (14) COJ.L0oa 'too OtKO) HAtt Et t~lMxcr911m:'talaJlaptta atKOU HAtl tV 9UJlll:x.flatt Tl EV Burnate; Eeoc; tOU atOlvoc;. (15) Kat KOlJlatat I:~11e" avayyE1A.a.t t11V opam.v tID I-lAEt I: Eym. (17) Kat Et1tEV Tt to pTlIla lCUpt.OU 'to AaATl9EV 1tpOe; crE tllV VUKta t?lCVOV; IlTl Or\1CpU'I'll<; a1t Elle".) ElC 1tcxv'tmv "Crov AOymv 'tON AaA.Tl9EVtmv EV 'tot;.; mmv ao\)' tuBE 1tOt11crUt OOt 0 geoc; lCat taOE 1tpoa9EtTl, EUV KPU\lfl1C:: ux ElloU PTllla. (18) Kat a1t11yyElAeV au'tO) WIlOUTlA xavtac; tOUc; AOyoUe;, Kat OUK EKPU\VEV ax autou PllJlU' Kat Et1tEV HAtl Kuptoc; autoc;' to apEotov EvomlOV autou XOtllCfEt. (19) Kat EIlE"?XA'\>v911 WlloullA, KUl Tlv ? KUptOC; IlE't autou' OUK E1tECJEV a']'l:o xav'trov trov autou Em tllV Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 129 "fIlv 0?0& EV pTULeX. (20) Kat Eyvcooav next; lapaT\A ano tiav Kat ?CJll; BT\paapeat ott 7t1.o'toC; UxJloUllA EtC; 7tpo~pa, Kat ot mot au'tou 1tOpEUOJlEVOt e1tOpEUOV'tO, Kal 1tOVllpa TJ oooe; CXUtoov EVCl>7t1.0V KUptOU. Hexaplaric Recension (3: 1) Kat 'to 1tatOaptov lliJlouT\).. T1V A.ettoupyrov 'too lC'Uptoo EVWltlOV HA.?t tou tEPE~' Kat PllJla Kl>ptOU "V tlJllOV EV tatc; 1'\JlEpcxtC; EKEtVa.c;, OUK TJv opamc; OtaO"tEUou(J'(X. (2) Kat E)'?veto EV 'tTl TlJlEpa E1CElVTl Kat I&t eKa8EuO?v EV 'too 't01tCO cxUtoU, Kat ot optoU OU ll1Ct~CJYtoe; toU 9EOU. (4) Kat EKCXA.?voc; EV a&n101 autou, Kat OUK Evou8EtEl autouc; Kat QUO outcoc;. (14) Olflooa tID OlKro HA.e:t Et E~tA.aaeT\OE't(UaOuaa otKOU HAEt EV 8uJ.11al.latt Kat 8UO'1a.1C; Ewe; a.tIDV0C;. (15) Kat KotJ.1ata1 :I:CXJ.I.0UTlA. Eroc; 1tpml, Kat rop8plcrEV 'to 1tprot Kat TlVOt;EV 'tac; aupa.c; tou otKOU 9EOU' Kat E L:xJ,LoU11A 1t. (21) Kat 1tp0O"E9E't0 1C\}ptoC; o"Ar09llva.t EV LllA.roJ.t, o'tt a1tEKaAUcpEhl KUptOC; 'tro UlJ.l0U"A.? Kat E7tlcrtEU9rt Uxl.lo'\>'l1A. 7tpOqrJ'l'tl'\C; ')'?veaeat tOu lCUp10U EtC; 1taVta IOPCXllA CX1t aKprov 'tllC; "(llC; e:ro:; aKpOlV. Kat 1iAE1 7tPE(j~U'tT\C; mpDopa, Kat ot 'UtOl au'tou 1tOpe:UOJl?VOl E1tOpEUOV'tO, Kat 1tov"pa 11 oooe; au'tCl>V EVomtOV KUp1OU. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ackroyd, Peter R. The First Book ofSamuel. The Cambridge Bible Commentary, New English Bible. New York and London: Cambridge University Press, 1971. __~~. The Second Book ofSamuel. The Cambridge Bible Commentary, New English Bible. New York and London: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study ofthe Renderings a/the Hebrew Coordinate C/ouses in the Greek Pentateuch. Annales academiae scientarium fennicae, Diss. Hum. Litl, no. 31. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982. Aland, Kurt, and Aland, Barbara. The Text ofthe New Testament. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987. Alter, Robert. The An ofBiblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Andersen, Francis 1. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. Janua Unguarum, Series Practica, no. 231. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. Andersen, Francis I., and Forbes, A. Dean. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: DaJwod Memorial Lecture. Biblica et Orientalia, no. 41. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 11, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, Old Testament editor John D. W. Watts. Waco: Word Books, 1989. Ap-Thomas, D. R. A Primer ofOld Testament Text Criticism. 2d ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. Baer, S. Liber Samuelis: Textum Masoreticwn Accuratissime Expressit. e Fontibus Masorae Vane Rlustravit. Noeis Criticis Confirmavit. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1892. Baldwin, Joyce G. 1 and 2 Samuel. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988. Bange, L. A. A Study in the Use l?f Vowel-Letters in Alphabetic Consonantal Writing. Munich: UNI-DRUCK, 1971. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative An in the Bib/e. Translated by Dorothea Shefer-Vanson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, no. 70. Bible and Literature Series, no. 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, Almond Press, 1989. 131 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 132 Barr, James. The Typology ofLiteralism in Ancient Biblical Transkuions. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Untemehmens, no. 15. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. __"""::"::"". Comparative Philology and the Text ofthe Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; reprint, with additions and corrections, Winona I..ake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987. ___. The Variable Spellings ofthe Hebrew Bible. Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1989. Barthelemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d 'A.quila. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, no. 10. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963. ______. Etudes d'hisfoire du texte de l'Ancien Testament. Orbis Biblicus et OrientaIis, no. 21. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1978; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. __~,. Preliminary and Interim Repon on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. 2d ed. 5 vots. New York: United Bible Societies, Committee of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 1979-80. __~. Critique textuelle de l'Aneien Testament. Vol. 1, Josue, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, ChroJliques, Esdras, Nehemie, Esther. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 5011. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1982; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. ___,. Critique textuelle de I 'Ancien Testament. Vol: 2, [sare, Jerbnie, Lamentations. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 50/2. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1986; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & RlJprecht, 1986. Barthelemy, Dominique, and J. T. Milik. Discoveries in the Judaean Desen ofJordan. Vol. 1: Qumran Cave 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. Bauer, Hans; Leander, Pontius; and Kahle, Paul. Historische Grammatik der hebriiischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1. Ttibingen: Max Niemeyer, 1922; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962. Baumstark, Anton. Geschichte des syrischen Literalur: Mit Ausschluss der christlich? pallistinensische Texte. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber, 1922. Berges, Ulrich. Die VerwerjUng Sauls: Eine thematische Untersuchung. Forschung zur Bibel, vol. 61. Wiirzburg: Echter, 1989. Bergstriisser, Gofthelf. Hebraische Grammarik. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1918. __-=-. EinjUhrung in die semitischen Sprachen. With an appendix, "Zur Syntax der Sprache von Ugarit," by Carl Brockelmann. Munich: Max Hueber, 1928. Birch, Bruce C. The Rise ofIsraelite Monarchy: The Growth and Deve/opmem of1 Samuel 7? 15. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, no. 27. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Blaikie, W. G. The First Book ofSamuel. The Expositor's Bible, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 133 New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1905. Blondheim, D. S. Les Judea-Romans et la Vetus Latina: Etude sur les rapports entre les traductions bibliques en langue Romane des juijs au Moyen Age et les anciennes versions. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Edouard Champion, 1925. Bodine, Walter Ray. The Greek Text ofJudges: Recensional Developments. Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 23. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Boecker, Hans Jochen. Die Beuneilung der Anflinge des Konigrums in den deuteronomistischen Abschnitten des I. Samuelbuches: Bin Beitrag zum Problem des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks. Wissenschaftliche Monographen zum Alten und Neuen Testament, no. 31. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik de. Research into the Text ofJ Samuel i-xvi: A Contribution to the Study ofthe Books ofSamuel. Amsterdam:. H. I. Paris, 1938. Booth, W. C. The Rhetoric ofFiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Borbone, Pier Giorgio. nlibro del profeta Osea: Edizione cririca del testa ebraico. Quademi di Henoch, no. 2. Turin: Silvio amorani, 1987. Bostrom, Otto Henry. Alternative Readings in the Hebrew ofthe Books ofSamuel. Augustana Library Publications, no. 8. Rock Island, IL: Augustana Book Concern, 1918. Bowker, John Westerdale. The Targwns and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretation ofScripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Brockelmann, Carl. Syrische Grammatik. 6th ed. Port--a Linguarum Orientalium, ed. Richard Hartmann, no. 5. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1951. ___"Hebraische Syntax. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungs~Vereins, 1956. ___'. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Berlin: Reuter & Reichard; New York: Lemcke & Buechner, 1908-13; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1961. Brongers, H. A.; Grosheide, H.; Houtman, C.; Mulder, M. J.; Oosterhoff, B. J.; van der Ploeg, J. P. M.; and van der Woude, A. S., eds. The World ofthe Old Testament. Translated by Sierd Woudstra. Bible Handbook, vol. 2. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989. Brown, Francis; Driver, S. R; and Briggs, Charles A. A Hebrew and English Lexicon ofthe Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906; reprint, 1951. Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays, Patrick D. Miller, Jr., and Paul J. Achtemeier. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990. Buck, Carl Darling. Comparative Grammar ofGreek and Larin. Chicago: University of Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 134 Chicago Press, 1933. Budde, Karl. Die Bacher Samuel. Kuner Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, ed. Karl Marti) vol. 8. Tiibingen and Leipzig, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1902. Buhl, Frants Peder William. Ca,lOn and Text o/the Old Testament. Translated by John MacPherson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892. Campbell, Antony F. The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4-6; 2 Sam 6): A Fonn-Critical and Traditio? Historical Study. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, no. 16. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. ___. OfProphets and Kings: A Late Ninth Century Document (l Samuel-2 Kings 10). Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical.Association ofAmerica, 1986. Cappel, Louis. Commentarii et notae criticae in Verus Testamentum Amsterdam: Jacobus Cappellus, 1689. Caspari, Wilhelm. Die Samuelblicher. Kommentar zum Alten Testament, ed Ernst Sellin, vol. 7. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr. Werner Scholl, 1926. Chafin, Kenneth L. 1,2 Samuel. The Communicator's Commentary, ed. Lloyd J. Ogilvie. Dallas: Word Books, 1989. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. London: SCM Press, 1979. Churgin, Pinkhos. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. New York: Ktav, 1983. Clark, Albert Curtis. The Descent ofManuscripts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918; reprint, Norwich: Fletcher and SOil, 1969. Conroy, Charles. 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings. Old Testament Message, ed. Carroll Stuhlmueller and Martin McNamara, vol. 6. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983. Conybeare, F. C., and Stock, 81. George. Grammar ~fSeptuagint Greek. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1905; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988. Cox, Claude E. He.xaplaric Materials Preserved in the Annenian Versions. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. The Ancient Library ~fQumranand Modem Biblical Studies. 2d ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Anchor Books, 1961. __.__. Canaanite Myth and Hebrevv Epic: Essays in the History o/the Religion o/Israel. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr., and Freedman, David Noel. Early Hebrew Onhography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. American Oriental Series, no. 36. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952. __--:::-'. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, no. 21. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature, Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 135 1975. Cross, Frank Moore, and Ulrich, Eugene Charles, Jr., eds. Discoveries in the Judaean Desen ofJordan. Vol. 11. Oxford: Clarendon Press, forthcoming. Dahood, Mitchell J. Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. __-=-" Psalms HI: 101-150. The Anchor Bible, ed. William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 17A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1970. Dalman, Gustaf. Grammarik des jtidisch-palastinischen AramiJsich. 2d ed. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905. Dearing, Vinton Adams. Manual afTextual Analysis. Berkeley: University of California ),,"ess, 1959. __~. Principles and Practice ofTextual Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Debrunner, Albert Zur Oberserzungstechnik des Septuaginta. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, no. 41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1925. Deist, Ferdinand E. Towards lhe Text ofthe Old Testament. Translated by W. K. Winckler. Pretoria: N. G. Kerkboekhandel Transvaal, 1978. __~. Witnesses to the Old Testament. The Literature of the Old Testament, vol. 5. Pretoria: N. G. Kerkboekhandel, 1988. Dhorme, P. Paul. Les livres de Samuel. Etudes bibliques. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1910. Dietrich, Walter. David, Saul und die Propheten: Vas Verhliltnis von Religion und Politik nach den prophetischen Oberlieferungen vomfrUhesten KiJnigtum in Israel. Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, no. 122. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1987. Dorival, Gilles; Harl, Marguerite; and Munnich, Olivier. La Bible grecque des Septante: De judaIs11Je helIenistique au christian/sme ancien. Initiations au christianisme ancien. Paris: Editions du Cerf and Editions du C.N.R.S., 1988. Dover, Kenneth James. Greek Word Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Driver, Godfrey Rolles. Semitic Writing: From Pictograph to Alphabet. 3d ed. Edited by S. A. Hopkins. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1976. Driver, S. R. A Treatise on the Use ofthe Tenses in Hebrew and Some Ofr.erSyntaetical Questions. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892. __~. Notes on the Hebrew Te.xt and the Topography ofthe Books ofSamuel. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913; reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 136 Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebrl1ischen Bibel. Vol. 3, }OSUlJ, Richter, I. u. 11. Samuelis. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1910. Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Basil Blackwood, 1965. Englert, Donald M. C. The Peshitto qfSecond Samuel. Journal o~' giblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 3. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1949. Engnell, Ivan. Gamla Testamentet en traditionshistorisk inledning. Part 1. Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokforlag, 1945. &linger, Lyle M. Kingship ofGod in Crisis: A Close Reading of1 Samuel 1-12. Bible and Literature Series, no. 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Farstad, Arthur L., and Hodges, Zane C. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982. Fernandez Marcos, Natalio. Inrroduccion a las versiones griegas de la biblia. Textos y estudios "Cardinal Cisneros", no. 23. Madrid: Instituto "Arias Montano" Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1979. Fernandez Marcos, Natalio, and Busto Saiz, Jose Ram6n. Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipo~1I(J.Textos y estudios "Cardinal Cisneros", no. 32. Madrid: Institute"Arias Montano" Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1984. Fischer, Bonifatius. Beitrl1ge mr C~schichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte. Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, no. 12. Fribourg: Verlag Herder, 1986. Fischer, Johann. Dos Alphabet der LXX-Vorlage im Pentateuch: Ei7U! textkritische Studie. Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, vol. 10, no. 2. Munster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1924. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblica/lnterpretation in Ancient Isr~l. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985; New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Flack, Elmer Flsworth, and Metzger, Bruce Manning. The Text, Canon and Principal Versions ofthe Bible. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1956. Fohrer, Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by David E. Green. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968. Fahrer, Georg; Hoffmann, Hans Werner; Huber, Friedrich; Markert, Ludwig; and Wanke, Gunther. Exegese des Alten Testaments: EinjUhrung in die Methodik. 4th ed. Uni? tasehenbiicher, no. 267. Heidelberg: QueUe & Meyer, 1983. Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative An and Poetry in the Books ofSamuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1981. . Frankel, Z. VorstOOien zurderSeptuaginta. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. With. Vogel, 1841. Freedman, David Noel; Forbes, A. Dean; and Andersen, Francis I., eds. Studies in Hebrew Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 137 and Aramaic Onhography. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego, vol. 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Freedman, David Noel; Mathews. K. A.; and Hanson, R. S. The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev). Win~na Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns for the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1985. Friedman, Richard Elliott, and Williamson, H. G. M., eds. The Future ofBiblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1987. Fun~ Robert Walker. A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar ofHellenistic Greek. 3 vols. Sources for Biblical Study, no. 2. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Garsiel, Moshe. The First Book ofSamuel: A literary Study ofComparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels. Jerusalem: Revivim, Rubin Mass, 1990. Gehrke, Ralph David 1 and 2 Samuel. Concordia Commentary. St lAJuis: Concordia, 1968. Gilbert, Pierre. Les livres de Samuel et des Rois. Cahiers Evangile, no. 44. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1983. Ginsburg, Christian David. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition ofthe Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; reprint, New York: Ktav, 1966. Gnuse, Robert Karl. The Dream Theophany ofSamuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984. Goettsberger, Johann. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Herders Theologische Grundrisse. Fribourg: Herder & Co., 1928. Gooding, David Willoughby. Current Problems and Methods in the Textual Criticism ofthe Old Testament: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the Queen's University of Belfast on 10 May 1978. Belfast: Mayne, Boyd & Son, 1979. Goodwin, Donald Watson. Text-Restoration Methods in Contemporary U.S.A. Biblical Scholarship. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica, Ricerche, no. 5. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1969. Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia, no. 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. Gordon, Robert P. I &: 11Samuel: A Commentary. Library of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe Henry. Text and Language in Bible and Qumran. Tel Aviv: Orient Publishing House, 1975. Grandgent, Charles H. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1907. Greenspahn, Freflerick E. Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew: A Study ofthe Phenomenon and Its Treatment since Antiquity with Special Reference to Verlxd Forms. Chico, CA: Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 138 Scholars Press, 1984. Greenspoon, Leonard Jay. Textual Studies in the &ok ofJoshua. Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 28. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Gre8mann, Hugo. Die lilteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea). Die Schriften des Alten Testaments, part 2, vol. 1. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1969. Heater, Homer, Jr. A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book QfJob. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, no. 11. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association, 1982. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. Die Samuelbacher. 2d ed. Das Alte Testament Deutsch, ed. Volkmar Herntrich and Artur Weiser, vol. 10. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. Hofmann, J. B., and Szantyr, Anton. Lateinische Synlox u.'Ui Stilistik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, division 2, part 2, vol. 2. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1965. Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon ofthe Old Testament. GT"and Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1971. Hurtado, Larry D. Text-Critical Methodology anti r~e Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex Win the Gospel ofMark. Studies and Documents, no. 43. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1981. Hylander, Ivar. Der literarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex (I. Sam. 1-15) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1932; Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1932. Jellicoe. Sidney. The Septuagint and Modem Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. __~. ed. Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions and lnterpretatiom. New York: Ktav, 1974. Jobling, David. The Sense ofBiblical Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 13-31, Numbers 11-12, 1 Kings 17-18). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, no. 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978. . Johannessohn, Martin. Der Gebrauch der Kll..\'US in der Septuaginta. Berlin: Max Schmersow, 1910. ___. Der Gebrauch der Prlipositionen in der Septuaginta. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta? Untemehmens, no. 3. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926. Johns, Alger F. A Short Grammar ofBiblical Aramaic. Revised ed. Andrews University Monographs, vol. 1. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972. Johnson, Bo. Die hexaplarische Rezension des 1. Samuelbuches der Septuaginta. Studia Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 139 Theologica Lundensia, no. 22. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1963. __~. Die armenische Bibelabersetzung als hexaplarischerZeuge im 1. Samuelbuch. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, no, 2. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1968. Kahle, Paul E. Masoreten des Ostens: Die altesten punktierten Handschrijten des Alten Testaments und der Targume. Leipzig: J, C. Hinrichs, 1913. __~,. Die Punktation der Masoreten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, no. 41. Berlin: WaIter de Gruyter, 1925. ___' Masoreten des Westens. 2 vols. Texte nnd Untersuchungen zur vormasoretischen Gramrnatik des Hebraischen, no. 4. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1927-30. ___. The Cairo Geniw. 2d ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959. __-=-' Der hebriiische Bibeltext seit Franz Delitzrch: Franz Delitzrch Vorlesungen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1961. Kalt, Edmund, and Lauck, Willibald, eds. Herders Bibelkommemar: Die Heilige Schriftjilr lias Leben erkliirt. Vol. 3/1, Die Samuelbacher, by Peter Ketter. Fribourg: Herder & Co., 1940. Kautzsch, li, and Cowley, A. E. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. 2d ed. Oxford: Oarendon Press, 1910. Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Delitzsch, Franz. Biblischer Commentar Uber das Alte Testament. Part 2, Prophetische GeschichtsbUCher. Vol. 2, Die BUcher Samuels. Leipzig: DOrfling und Franke, 1864. Kennedy, A. R. S., ed. Samuel. The Century Bible, ed. Walter F. Adeney. Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1905. Kennedy, James. An Aid to the Textual Amendment ofthe Old Testament. Edited by N. Levinson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928. Kenyon, Frederick George. Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism ofthe Greek Bible. London: H. Milford, Oxford University for the British Academy, 1933. ___.The Text o/the Greek Bible. 3d ed. London: Duckworth, 1975. Kenyon, Frederick George, and Adams, A. W. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. 5th ed. With an Introduction by G. R. Driver. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958. Kirkpatrick, A. F. The First Book ofSamuel. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, ed. J. J. S. Perowne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Klein, Ralph W. Textual Criticism ofthe Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. ___.1 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 10, gen. eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, Old Testament editor John D. W. Watts. Waco: Word Books, Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 140 1983. Klostermann, Erich. Die Bacher Samuelis unil der KiJnige. KurzgefaBter Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentes sowie zu den Apokryphen, ed. Hermann Strack and Otto Boclder, vol. 3. Nordlingen: C. H. Beck, 1887. __....,..-,. Analeeta zur Septuaginta. Hexapla und Patristik. Leipzig: A. Deichert (Georg Bohme), 1895. Koster, M. D. The Peshi{ta ofExodus: The Development ofIts Text in the Course qfFifteen Centuries. Studia Semitica Neerlandica, no. 19. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1977. Kraft, Robert A., and Tov, Emanuel. A Computerized DaJa Basefor Septuagint Studies: The Parallel Aligned Text ofthe Greek and Hebrew Bible. Computer Assi~ted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), vol. 1, RUth, by John R. Abercrombie. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Supplementary Series, no. 1. Stellenbosch: Journal of Northwest Semitic languages, 1986. Krinetzki, Gunter. Von Samuel bis David: Die Bacher Samuel Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. Le Deaut, R Introduction aLa litterarure targumique. Part 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. Leimbach, Karl A. Die Bacher Samuel. Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes, ed. Franz Feldmann and Heinrich Herkenne, vol. 3, pt. 1. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1936. Levine, Etan. The Aramaic Version ofthe Bible: Contents and Context. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, no. 174. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Licht, Jacob. Storytelling in the Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes Press for the Hebrew University, 1978. Lundstrom, Sven. Ubersetzungstechnische Untersuchungen aufdem Gebiete der Christlichen lAtinittil. Lunds universitets c\rsskrift, no. 51/3. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1955. Lust, Joban, ed. Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, no. 74. Leuven: University Press, 1986. Maas, Paul. Textual Criticism. Translated by Barbara Flower. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. Margolis, Max Leopold. The Book ofJoshua in Greek: According to the Critically Restored Text with an Apparatus Containing the Variants ofthe Principal Recensions andofthe Individual Witnesses. 4 vols. Paris: Paul Geutner, 1931-38. Mauchline, John. 1 and 2 Samuel. New Century Bible, ed. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black. London: Oliphants, 1971. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. I Samuel. The Anchor Bible, ed. William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1980. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 14] ___,a 11 Samuel. The Anchor Bible, ed. William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 9. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1984. ___,a Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text o/the Hebrew Bible. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text o/the Old Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 36. Fribourg: Universitatsverlag, 1981; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. McKane, William. 1 &: 11Samuel. Torch Bible Commentaries, ed. John Marsh and Alan Rich2"?:ison, London: SCM Press, 1963. Metzger, Bruce, " The Text ofthe New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restorati&.., 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. ___a A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Corrected ed. London: United Bible Societies, 1975. ___a The Early Versions ofthe New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Miles, John Russiano. Retroversion and Text Criticism: The Predictability ofSyntax in an Ancient Translationfrom Greek to Ethiopic. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, no. 17. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Miscall, Peter D. The Workings ofOld Testament Narrative. The Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. __~. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. Indiana Studies in Biblical literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Mommer, Peter. Samuel: Geschichte und Uber/iejerung. Wissenschaftliche Monographen zum Alten und Neuen Testament, no. 65. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Mulder, M. J.; Oosterhoff, B. J.; Reiling, R.; Ridderbos, H. R.; and van Unnik, W, C., eds. The World ofthe Bible. Translated by Sierd Woudstra. Bible Handbook, vol. 1. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1986. Muraoka, Takamitsu. Emphatic Words tmd Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985. ___a Classical Syriac for Hebraists. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987. ___"ed. The Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Nelson, Richard D, The Double Redaction o/the Deuteronomistic History. Jomnal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, no, 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Nestle, E. Septuagint-Stud/en. Vols. 1-2. Ulm: Program des kgl. Gymnasiums, 1886-96. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 142 __-=-' Septuagint-Studien. Vols. 3-5. Stuttgart: Program des kgl. Wiirttembergischen Evangelisch-Theologischen Seminars, Mau1braun, 1899-1907., Newsome, James D. 1 Samuel. 2 Samuel. Knox Preaching Guides, ed. John H. Hayes. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982. Niccacci, Alviero. The Syntax o/the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, no. 86. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, JSOT Press, 1990. Nowack, Wilhelm. Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus fUr die alttestamentliche Textkritik. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1875. ___. Richter, Ruth u. Bueher Samuelis. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, part 1, vol. 4, ed. Wilhelm Nowack. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902. O'Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Olofsson, Staffan. The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique ofthe Septuagint. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, no. 30. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990. Orlinsky, Harry Meyer. The Septuagint: The Oldest Translation ofthe Bible. Union Anniversary Series. Cincinnati: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1949. ___. Bsays in Biblical Culture and Bible Translation. New York: Ktav, 1974. Ottley, Richard Rusden. A Handbook to the Septuagint. London: Methuen & Co., 1920. Paret, Oscar. Die Oberliejerung der Bibel. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Wiirttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1966. Payne, David Frank. I &: II Samuel. The Daily Study Bible (Old Testament), ed. John C. L. Gibson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. Perez Castro, Federico, ed. EI Codke d~ Pro/etas de E/ Cairo. Part 1, Samuel. Textos y estudios "Cardinal Cisneros" de la Biblia Poliglota Matritense, no. 30. Madrid: Instituto "Arias Montano" Cansejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1983. Peters, Norbert. BeitrtJge mr Text- unil Literarkritik sowie zur Erkldrung der Bacher Samuel. Fribourg: Herder'sche Verlagshandlung, 1899. Pfeiffer, Robert Henry. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Bros., 1948. Pisano, Stephen. Additions or Omissions in the Books o/Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 57. Fribourg: Universitatsverlag, 1984; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Plater, W. E., and White, H. J. A Grammar o/the Vulgate. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926. Polzin, Robert. Moses and the DeUleronomist: A Literary Study ofthe Deuteronomic HisTOry. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 143 New York: Seabury, 1980. ___. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A literary Study o/the Deuteronomic History. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989. Quentin, Henri. Memorie sur restablissement du texte de la Vulgate. Vol. 6, pt. 1, Oetateuque. Collectanea Biblica latina, no. 6. Rome: Desclee et Cie., 1922; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1922. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962-65. Rahlfs, Alfred. Ve17?ichnis der griechischen Handschrifien des Alten Testaments,jUrdas Septuaginta-Untemehmens. GOttingen: Nachrichten von der kooiglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1928. __~. Septuaginta-Studien. 2d ed. Vols. 1-3. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Reider, Joseph. Prolegomena to a Greek-Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek Index to Aquila. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1916. Reider, Joseph, and Turner, Nigel. Index to Aquila: Greek-Hebrew, Hebrew-Gree~ Latin? Hebrew: With the Syriac and Armenian Evidence. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, no. 12. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. Roberts, BlOOdyn J. The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History ofthe A.ncient Versions. Cardiff: University of Wales, 1951. Robertson, David. The Old Testament and the Literary Critic. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Robinson, Henry Wheeler, ed. The Bible in Its A.ncient and English Versions. Revised ed., with an Appendix on the Dead Sea Scrolls, by W. D. McHardy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954. Robinson, Theodore H. Paradigms and &ercises in Syriac Grammar. 4th ed. Edited by L. H. Brockington. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar ofBiblical Aramaic. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, n.s., no. 5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974. Sanders, James. CQlWn and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. ___. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Schickelberger, Franz. Die 1.LJdeenAhlungen des ersten Samuel-&ches: Eine literarutwissen.vchaji/iche und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung. Forschung zur Bibel, no. 7. Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1973. Schley, Donald G. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History. Journal for the Study of Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 144 the Old Testament Supplement Series, no. 63. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, JSOT Press, 1989. Schulz, Alfons. Die Bacher Samuel. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. Johannes Nikel, vol. 8. Munster: Aschendorff, 1919. Schwartz, Emanuel. Die syrische Uebersetzung des ersten Buches Samuelis und ihr Verhiiltniss zu MT.. LXX und Trg. Berlin: H. ltzkowski, 1896. Seebass, Horst. David. Saul und das Wesen des biblischen Glaubens. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980. Seeligmann, lsac Leo. The Septuagint Version ofIsaiah: A Discussion ofIts Problems. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1948. Segal, J. B. Edessa: The Blessed City. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Seow, C. L. A Grammarfor Biblical Hebrew. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987. Shenkel, James Donald. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings. Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Smith, Henry Preserved. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books ofSamuel. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899. Smolar, Leivy, and Auerbach, Moses. Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. New York: Ktav, 1983. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Edited by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Soderlund, Sven. The Greek Text ofJeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985,. Soggin,1. Alberto. Introduction to the Old Testament. Revised ed. Translated by John Bowden. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1980. Soisalon-Soini.nen, Ilmari. Die Infinitive in der Septuaginra. Annates academiz scientiarum fennicz, no. 132, 1. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeak:atemia, 1965. SoUamo, Raija. Renderings ofHebrew Semipreposirions in the Septuagint. Annales academiz scientiarum fennicce, DisSf~rtationes humanarum litterarum, no. 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979. Sperber, Alexander. AHistorical Grammar ofBiblical Hebrew: A Presentation ofProblems with Suggestions to Their Solution. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. . St~be, Hans Joachim. Dos erste Buch Samuelis. Kommentar zurn Alten Testament, vol. 8, pt. I. GUtersloh: Giitersloher Ver]agshaus Gerd Mohn, 1973. Stramare, Tarcisio, ed. Lo. bibbia "Vulgata" dalle origini ai nostri giomi. Collectanea Biblica Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 145 Latina, no. 16. Rome: Abbazia San Girolamo, Libreria Vaticana, 1987. Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study ofOrigins. London: Macmillan & Co., 1924. Stummer, Friedrich. EinjUhrung in die lateinische Bibel: Ein HandbHchjUr Vorlesungen und Selbstunterricht. Paderbom, Germany: F. Schoning, 1928. __~. Hauptprobleme der Eiforschung der alttestamentlichen Vulgata. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, no. 66. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1936. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. With an Appendix by Henry St. John Thackeray. Revised by Richard Rusden Ottley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989. 'Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar ofthe Old Testament in Greek. Vol. 1, Introduction, Onhography and Accidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1978. __-,..".. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship. 2d ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1923. ___. Some Aspects ofthe Greek Old Testament. With a Foreward by M. Gaster. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1927. Thenius, Otto. Die BUCher Samuels. 2d ed. Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament, no. 4. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1864. Tigay, Jeffrey H., 00. Empirical Modelsfor Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use ~fthe Septuagint in Biblical Re.'iearch. Jerusalem Biblical Studies, no. 3. Jerusalem: Simor, 1981. __~,. A Computerized Data Basefor Septuagint Studies: The Parallel A.ligned Text ofthe Greek and Hebrew Bible. Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), vol. 2. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Supplemen!M}' Series, no. 1. Stellenbosch: Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 1986. ___" Textual Criticism ofthe Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992. _____, ed. The Hebrew and Greek Texts ofSamuel. 1980 Proceedings of the IOSCS? Vienna. Jerusalem: Acedemon, 1980. Ulrich, Eugene Charles, Jr. The Qumran Text o/Samuel and Josephus. Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Vaux, Roland de. Les livres de Samuel. 2d ed. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1961. Verheij, A. J. C. Verbs and Numbers: A Study ofthe Frequencies ofthe Hebrew Verbal Tense Fonns in the Books ofSamuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Studia Semitica Neerlandica. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 146 Vriezen, Theodore Christiaan, and van der Woude, A. S. De Literatuur van Oud-Isra~l. 4th ed. Wassenaar: Servire, 1973. Walters, Peter [Peter Katz]. The Text ofthe Septuagint: Its Corruptions and TJu!ir Emendation. Edited by David W. Gooding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Waltke, Bruce K., and O'Connor, M. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Weingreen, Jacob. Introduction to the Critical Study ofthe Text ofthe Hebrew Bib/e. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Weiser, Artur. Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961. Wel1hausen, Julius. Der Text der Bacher Samuelis. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871. Wenin, Andre. Samuel et ['instauralion de la monarchie (1 S 1-12): Une recherce lineraire sur Ie personnage. Publications universitaires europeennes, series 23: Theologie, vol. 342. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, 1987. Westcott, Brooke Foss, and Hart, Fenton John Anthony. The New Testament in the Original Greek. New Yark: Harper & Brothers, 1882. Wiirthwein, Ernst The Text ofthe Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979. Wutz, Franz. Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus. Part 1. Beitriige zur Wissenschaft vorn Alten Testament, n.s., no. 9, Texte und Untersuchungen zur vormasoretuschen Grammatik des Hebriiischen, no. 2. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer, 1925. Yeiven, Israel. Introduetion to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated and Edited by E. J. Revell. Masoretic Studies, no. 5. Chico, CA: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature and the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, 1980. Zevit, Ziony. Mattes Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs, American Schools ofOriental Research Monograph Series, no. 2. Cambridge, MA: American Schools ofOriental Research, 1980. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel. Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. 2 vols. Translated by James D. Martin. Edited by Paul D. Hanson and LeonardJ. Greenspoon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979-83. Collections Aclcroyd, Peter R. "The Historical Literature." In The Hebrew Bible and Its Modem Interpreters, ed. Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker, 297-324. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1985. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 147 Aejmelaeus, Anneti. "The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and TransIation-Technical Study of the Septuagint.It In VI Congress a/the Inummional Organizationfor Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem 1986, ed. Claude E. Cox, 361-80. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies, DO. 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. __~. "OTl recitat;vum in Septuagintal Greek." In Srudien zur Septuaginta-Robert Hanhan zu Ehren aus AnlajJ seines 65. Gebunstages, eeL DetlefFraenkel, Udo Quast, and John William Wevers, 74-82. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3d series, no. 190, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Untemehmens, no. 20. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Albrektson, Bertil. "Reflections on the Emergence ofa Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible." In Congress Volume: Gottingen 1977, 00. J. A. Emerton, William L Holladay, A. Lemaire, Roland E. Murphy, E. Nielsen, R. Smend, and J. A. Soggin,49-65. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, no. 29. l..eiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. ___. "Difficilior Lectio Probabilior: A Rule ofTextual Criticism and Its Use in Old Testament Studies." In Remembering All the Way: A Collection o/Old Testament Studies Published on The Occasion o/The Fortieth Anniversary o/the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland, ed. A. S. van tier Woude, 5-18. Oudtestamentiscbe Studien, no. 21. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981. Albright, William F. "The Psalm of Habakkuk." In Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson, ed. H. H. Rowley, 1-18. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950. Alonso-Schakel, Luis. "On Methods and Models." In Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983, ed. J. A. Emerton, 3-13. Supplem~nts to Vetus Testamentum, no. 36. l..eiden: E. J. Brill, 1984. Barr, James. "Vocalization and the Analysis of Hebrew among the Ancient Translators." In Hebrmsche Wonjorsc1umg: Festschrift zum 80. Gebunstag von Walter Baumgartner, ed. G. W. Anderson, P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino, Henri Cazelles, E. Hamrnershaimb, H. G. May, W. Zimmerli, 1-11. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, no. 16. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967. ______. "Translators' Handling of Verb Tense in Semantically Ambiguous Contexts." In VI Congress o/the International Organizationfor SeptUagint and Cog1Ul1e Studies: Jerusalem 1986, ed. Claude E. Cox, 381-403. Society of Biblical literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies, no. 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. __-=' "'Guessing' in the Septuagint." In Studien zurSeptuaginta-Roberr Hanhart zu Ehren aus AnlajJ seines 65. Geburrstages,OO. Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, and John William Wevers, 19-34. Abhandlungen der Akademie derWissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3d series, no. 190, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Untemehmens, no. 20. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Banhelemy, Dominique. "Eusebe,]a Septante et 'les autres.'" In La bible et lfS peres: Colloque de Strusbourg (ler-3 octubre 1969), ed. Bibliotheque des Centres d'Etudes Superieures Specialises, 50-65. Paris: Presses Universitaires des France, 1971. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 148 . "Les Tiqqune Sopherim et la critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament." (nap. in---::EiUd~es d 'hjstoire du texte de l'Ancien Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 21. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1978; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. __-::-' "La qualit6 du Texte Massoretique de Samuel." In The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, ed. Emanuel Tov, 1-44. 1980 Proceedings of the IOSCS-Vienna. Jerusalem: Acedemon, 1980. ? "Trois niveaux d'analyse (a propos de David et Goliath)." In The Story ofDavid and Goliath, by Dominique Barthelemy, David W. Gooding, Joban Lust, and Emanuel Tov, 20-40. Oibis Biblicus et Orientahs, DO. 13. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1986; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Bertram, Georg. "Das Problem der Umschrift und die religionsgeschichtliche Fnorschung der Septuaginta." In Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments: Vonrage gehalten aUfiJer internatiOllllkn Tagung alttestamentlicher Forscher zu GlJttingen rom 4.?}O. Se~ember 1935, ed. Paul Volz, Friedrich Stummer, and Johannes Hem~l,97-109. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, no. 66. BeJ'lin: Alfred TOpelmann, 1936. Bickerman, Bias. "Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint" Chap. in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Part 1. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, vol. 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1916. __~. "The Septuagint as a Translation." Chap. in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Part 1. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchnstentums, vol. 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1916. Brock, Sebastian P. "TIle Phenomenon of the Septuagint" In The Witness ofTradition: Pa~rs Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Confrrence Held at Woudschoten, 1970, ed. A. S. van der Woude, 11-36. Oudtestamentische Studien, no. 17. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972. __-:-' "The Phenomenon of Biblical Translation in Antiquity." In Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations, ed. Sidney JeJ1icoe.l.541-71. Library of BibhCal Studies, ed. Harry M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav, 19/4. Cook, Johann. "The Com~sitionof the Peshitta Version of the Old Testament (pentateuch)." In The Peshi(w: Its Early Text and History. Papers Read at the Peshi(ta Sym~sium Held at Leiden 30-3) August 1985, ed. P. B. Dirksen and M. J. Mulder, f47-68. Monographs of the Peshifta Institute, Leiden, no. 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988. ___. "The Plurality ofOld Testament Texts and Exegetical Methodology." In Paradigms and Progression in Theology, ed. J. Mouton, A. G. van Aarde, and W. S. Vorster, 362-77. Pretoria: The Human Sciences Research Council, 1988. Cox, Oaude. wrhe Use of the Armenian Version for the Textual Criticism of the Septllagint." In La SeptUaginta en la investigaciOn contemportinea (V congreso de la IOSCS), ed. Natalio Fernandez Marcos, 25-35. Textos Y. estudios "Cardinal Cisneros" de 1a Biblia Poliglota Matritense, no. 34, Madrid: Instituto "Arias Montano" Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1985. Cross, Frank Moore. "111e Development of the Jewish Scripts." In The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor ofWilliam Foxwell Albright, ed George Ernest Wright, 110-264. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1961. ___. "'The Evolution ofa Theory ofLocal Texts." In 1972 Proceedings ofthe Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 149 ImemationoJ Organizationfor &ptuagint and Cog1U1le Studies and the Soci~of Biblical LiterOJu~ Pseudepigraphf! Seminar, ed. Robert A. Kraft, 108-26. septUagint and Cognate Studies, no. 2. N.p.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. __-=-' "Problems ofMethod in the Textual Study of the Hebrew Bible." In The CritiCQ/ Study ofSacred Texts, ed. Wendy Doniger O'Aaherty, 31-54. Berkeley: Berkeley Religious Studies Series, 1979. Dahood, Mitchell. "Ella, Ugarit, and the Bible." Afterword to The Archives ofFbla: An Empire Inscribed in Clay, by Giovanni Pettinato. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1981. Debrunner, A. "ZUr Obersetzungsteehnik der Septuaginta." In Yom Allen Testamt!m: FestschriftjUr Karl Marti. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, no. 41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1925. Dlez Macho, Alejandro. E1 Targwn: Introduccion a las traducciones aramaicas de la Biblia. Textos y estudios "Cardinal Cisneros." Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1982. Dirksen, P. B. "IOc4-Judges, I, II Samuel." In The Peshi(ta: Its Early Text and I?mory. Papers Read OJ the Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 30-31 August 1985, ed. P. B. Dirksen and M. J. Mulder, 270-78. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute, Leiden, no. 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988. Eybers, I. H. "Notes on the Text of Samuel Found in Qumran Cave 4.,. In Studies on the Books ofSamuel: Papers Read at 3rd Meeting Held 01 Stellenbosch 26-28 Januory 1960. Pretoria: University of South Africa for Die au Testamtl~tiese Werkgemeeoskap in Suid-Afrika, 1960. Fernandez Marcos, Natalio. "The Lucianic Text in the Book of Kingdoms." In De St!ptuag;rJa: Studies in Honor ofJohn William Weyers on His Sixty??Fifth 5inhday, 00. fl'.. Pietersma and C. Cox, 161-74. Mississauga, ON: Benben" 1984. ___.. "'Some Reflections on the Antiochian Text of the S'-'?. ?1;;.agillt" In Studien mr Septuaginta-Robert Htinhal1 zu Ehren aus Anlaft seineJ :55.-GebunJ"'d!?~S, ed. Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, and John William Weyers, 219-29. ", v, ...~. J.l.)!1go.;o der Akademie deT Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Phil01ogisch-historisch~_;' .1: a in Targum Onqelos... Journal o/rhe American Oriental Socin}' III (1991): 712-19. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 160 Gehman~ H. S. ~Exegetical Methods Employed by the Greek Translator of I Samuel." Journal O/tM American Oriental Societ)' 70 (1950): 292-96. __-=-=" "The Hebraic Character of Septuagint Greek." Vetu.s'Testamennun 1 (1951): 81? 90. __---,-,. "Some Types of Errors ofTransmission in the LXX." VeIUS Testamentum 3 (1953): 141-48. Gooding, David W. "An Appeal fOT a Stricter Terminology in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament... JoumaI o/Semitic Studies 21 (1976): 15-25. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. "Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text~CriticalUse of the Septuagint." Texrus 3 (1963): 130-58. __-=-' -Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition." Biblica 48 (1967): 243-90. __~. "The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth." Journal of Biblical literature 102 (1983): 365-99. . __-=-" "The Development of the Hebrew Text of the Bible: 1beories and Practiceof Textual Criticism." Vews Testamentum 42 (1992): 204-13. GroB, Walter. Review of Mattes Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs, by Ziony Zevit. In Biblische ZLitschrift, n.s., 28 (1984): 131-33. Hallock, F. H. "The Coptic Old Testament." The American Journal o/~miticLanguages and literatures 49 (1932-33): 325-35. Halpern, Baruch, and Vanderhooft, David S. "The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries D.C.E." Hebrew Union College Annua/62 (1991): 179-244. Harl, Marguerite. "La place de la Septante dans les etudes bibliques." Etudes thiologiq~s ~, re1igieus~s 65 (1990): 161-69. Ha~ Raymond S. "The Transcription-Theory of the Septuagint" Journal a/Biblical Literature 53 (1934): 251-55. Heller, ~~. "Grenzen sprachlicher Fntsprechung der LXX: En Beitrag zur Ubersetzungsteehnik der LXX auf dem Gebiet der Aexiooskategorien." Mitteilungen des lnstitutsfur Orientforschung 15 (1969): 234-48. Homan, Martin J. "Computer Assisted Biblical Research." ConcordiaJournaJ 14 (1988): 150? 57. Hulley, Karl Kelchner. "Principles of Textual Criticism Known to St. Jerome." Hafl.YJrd Studies in Classical Philology 55 (1944): 87-109. Janzen, J. Gerald. '''Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh' (1 Samuel 3.15)." Journal for the Study o/the Old Testamem 26 (1983): 89-96. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 161 Jellicoe, Sidney. "The Hesychian Recension Reconsidered." Journal o/Biblicallit~1Q/ur~82 (1963): 409-18. _____. Review ofusdevanciers d'Aquila, by Dominique Barthelemy. In Journalo/the American Oriental Society 84 (1964): 178-82. Johannessohn, Martin. "Zur Entstehung der Ausdr.ucksweise der lateinischen Vulgata aus den Jfingeren griechischen alttestamentlichen Ubersetzungen." ~;t5Chri.ft.ftlrdie 1IeUlestamentliche WlSsenschaft 44 (1952-53): 90-102. Johnson, Bo. "On the Masoretic Text at the Beginning of the First Book of Samuel. ft Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 41-42 (1976-77): 130-37. Katz, Peter. "Zur Obersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta." W~/t des Orients 11 (1956): 267-73. Kelly, William. "First and Second Samuel." The Bible Today 100 (February 1979): 1885-92. Kerber, G. "Syrohexaplariscbe Fragmente zu den heiden Samuelis-biichem." uitschrijtflir die alttmamentliche Wissenschaft 18 (1898): 1n-96. Kirchmeyer, J. Review of Die haaplarische Reunsion des L Samuelbuches der Septuagillla, by Do Johnson. In Revue des hudes gncques 78 (1965): 454-51. Klein, Michael L "The Preposition o'p ('Before'): A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums." Journal o/Theological Studies, n.s., 30 (1979): 502-7. Kraft Robert A. Review ofus devanciers d 'AlJUila, hy Dominique Barthelemy. In Gnomon 37 (1965): 474-83. Leander, Pontius. "Bemerkungen zur paliistinischen Uberlieferung des Hebriiscben. ft ZeitschriftjUrdie al?esramentliche Wissenschajt 54 (1936): 91-99. Lee, J. A. L "Equivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXX." ReVUt! biblique 87 (1980): 104-17. Uebreich, L J. "Notes on the Greek Version of Symmachus." Journal ofBiblicallitermure 63 (1944): 397-403. Luke, K. "The Peshitta Version of the Old Testament." Bible Bhashyam 9 (1983): 200-219. ___. "The Ethiopic Version of the Bible." Bible Bhashyam 11 (1985): 236-53. ___. "The Georgian Version of the Bible." Bible~hyam 12 (1986): 59-79, 249-62. __~,. "The Septuagint: An Account of Recent Research." Bible Bhashyam 12 (1986): 131-49. __~. "The Armenian Version of the Bible." Bible Bhashyam 13 (1987): 57-72,128-41, 291-301. MaaB, F. "Zu den Qunuan-Varienten der BUcher SamueI." The%gische literaturuitung 81 (1956), coIs.337-40. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 162 Margolis, Max Leopold. "The Greek Preverb and Its Hebrew-Aramaic Equivalent" The A~rican Journal ofSemitic Languages andUteraturrs 30 (1909): 33-61. _~'. "Complete Induction for the Identification oftbe Vocabulary in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament with Its Semitic Eijuivalents: Its Necessity and the Means of Obtaining It" Journal o/the American Oriental Society 30 (1910): 301-12. __~. "Textual Criticism of the Greek Old Testament." Proceedings o/the IaIMrican Philosophical Society 67 (1928): 187-97. Martin, John A. "The Structure of 1 and 2 Samuel." Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (1984): 28-42. ___? "The Literary Quality of 1 and 2 Samuel." Bib/ia:heca Sacra 141 (1984): 131-45. ___. "The Text of 1 and 2 Samuel." Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (1984): 209-22. ___. "The Theology of 1 and 2 Samuel." Bibliotheca Sacra .141 (1984): 303-14. Martin-Achard, Robert. "Some Syntactical Criteria of Translation Greek." Vetus Testamentum 10 (1960): 295-310. Mayes, A. D. H. "The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy." Zeitschrift jiJr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft90 (1978): 1-19. McKane, W. Review of Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament, vol. 2, by Dominique Barthelemy. In Journal o/Theological Studies, n.s., 39 (1988): 169-72. Millard, A. R. "Variable Spelling in Hebrew and Other Ancient Texts." Journal o/Theological Studies, n.s., 42 (1991): 106-15. Ming~A. "Syriac Versions of the Old Testament." The Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s., 6 (1915-16): 385-98. Mulder, M. J. "The Old Testament Peshitta and Its Various Editions." Old TestarMnl Exegesis 3 (1985): 34-44. Muraoka, Takamitsu. "Did the Septuagint Translators Confuse Gimel with 'Ain'!" Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971): 612-17. ___" "Literary Device in the Septuagint." Textus 8 (1973): 20-30. Naveh, Joseph. Review of Matres I..ectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs, by Ziony Zevit. In Israel Exploration JournoJ 33 (1983): 1?~,9-40. Newman, Barclay M., Jr. "Some Hints of Solving T~iual Problem." The Bible Today 33 (1982): 430-35. . Nida, Eugene A. "The 'Harder Reading' in Textual Criticism: An Application of the Second law of Thermodynamics." The Bible Today 32 (l981): 101-7. Novotny, Tom2. Review of Additions or Omissions in the Books ofSamue/, by Stephen Pisano. In Theologische Literarurzeitung 113 (1988): cols. 21-22. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 163 Nyberg, H. S. "Das textkritische Problem des Alten Testaments am Hoseabuche demonstriert." Zeitschrift jUrdie aJttestamenrliche Wissenschqlt 52 (1934): 241-54. Orlinksy, Harry Meyer. "The Septuagint: Its Use in Textual Criticism." The Biblical Archaeologist 9 (1946): 22-34. ___,. 14The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators." HebrtW Union College Annual 46 (1975): 89-114. Pardee, Dennis. Review of Matres Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs, by Ziony Zevit In Catholic Biblical Quanerly 44 (1982): 503-4. __......,--. Review of Cririque tt!Xtuelle de /'A.ncien Testament, vol. 1, Josue, Juges, Ruth, Samuel. Ro;s. Chroniques, Erdras, Nehemie, Erther. In Journal ofNear &stern Studies 47 (1988): 153-54. Payne, D. F. "The Books of Samuel As a Study in Leadership." Irish Biblical Studies 4 (1982): 17-30. Peters, C. "Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs." Le Museon 48 (1935): 1-54. ___'. "Zur Herkunft der Pe?itta des ersten Samuel-buches." Biblica 22 (1941): 25-34. PreS, Richard. "Der Prophet Samuel: Ene traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung." Zeitschri/i jUrdie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1938): 177-225. Rabin, Chaim. "The Ancient Versions and the Indefinite Subject" Texrus 2 (1962): 60-76. __~,. "The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint" Turw 6 (1968): 1? 26. Rahlfs, Alfred. "Beitrage zur Textkritik der Peschitta." aitschriftjUrdie alttt!Stamentliche Wissenschaft9 (1889): 161-210. Rainey, Anson F. Review ofMatres Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs, by Ziony Zevit. In Journal o/Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 629-34. Redpath, Henry A. "A Contribution towards Settling the Dates of the Translation of the Various Books ofthe Septuagint." Journal o/Theological Studies, o.s., 7 (1905-6): 606-15. Reider, Joseph. "The Present State ofTextual Criticism of the Old Testament." Hebrew Union College Annual 7 (1930): 285-315. Rife, J. Merle. "The Mechanics of Translation Greek." Journal ofBiblical Literature 52 (1933): 244-52. Rinaldi, Giovanni. "Studi italiani suI test ebraico anticotestamentario." Bibbia e oriente 22 (1980): 55-61. Rofe, Alexander. "The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrence in 4QSamD." Revue de Qumran 14 (1989): 247-54. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za ]64 Saeb9, Magne. "From Plurifonnity to Uniformity: Some Remarks on the Emergence of the Massoretic Text, with Special Reference to Its Theological Significance." Annual ofthe SU'edish Theological Institute 11 (1977~78): 127~37. Sanders, James A. "Text and Canon: Concepts and Method." Journal ofBiblical literature 98 (1979): 5-29. Schneider, H. "Wenig beachtete Rezensionen der Peschitta." ZeitschriltjUrdie alttesttunemliche Wissenschqft 62 (1950): 168-99. Seeligmann, !sac Leo. "Problemen en perspectieven in het moderne Septuaginta~nderzoek." Jaarbericht ex oriente lux 7 (1940): 359-90. ___. "Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint." Vetus Test~ntum 11 (1961): 201-21. Segal, M. H. "The Composition of the Books of Samuel." The Jewish Quarterly Review 55 (1965): 318-39. Simon, Uriei. "Samuel's Call to Prophecy: Fonn Criticism with Close Reading." Prooftexrs: It. Journal ofJewish Literary History 1 (1981): 119-32. Skehan, Patrick W. "The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament" The Biblical Archaeologist 28 (1965): 87~100. Smith, Henry Preserved. "The Value of the Vulgate Old Testament for Textual Criticism." The Presbyterian and Refonned Review 2 (1891): 216-34. Smith, Michael. "Another Characteristic for the Kal')? Recension." Biblica 48 (1967): 44345. Soisalon-Soininen, llmari. "Verschiedene Wiedergaben der hebriiischen Status-Constructus Verbindung im griechischen Pentateuch." Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok ___""tv fUr d~ in der Septuaginta." Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 190-200. Sparks, H. F. D. "The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel." Journal ofTheological Studies, o.s.,44 (1943): 129-38. Sperber, Alexander. "Zur Sprache des Prophetentargums." ZeitschriftjUrdie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 45 (l927)~ 267~87. __~. "The Problems of the Septuagint Recensions." Journal ofBiblical Literature 54 (1935): 73-92. Stahl, Rainer. "Die Uberlieferungsgeschichte des hebriiischen Bibeltextes aJs Problem der Textkritik-Ein Beitrag zu gegenwartig vorliegenden textgeschichtJichen Hypothesen und zur Frage nach dem VerhaItnis von Text- und Literarkritik." Theologische Literaturzeitung 105 (1980): cols. 475-78. Stenzel, M. "Das erste Samuelbuch in den lateinisch erhaltenen Origeneshomilien zum Alten Testamente." Zeitschriftfurdie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, n.s., 20 (1949): 30-43. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 165 Stipp, Herrnann~Josef. "Das Verhaltnis von Textlaitik und literarlaitik in neucren alltestamentlichen Veroffentlichungen." Biblische Zeitschri/t, n.s., 34 (1990): 16-37. Stoebe, Hans~Joachim. "Uberlegungen zur Exegese historischer Texte-dargesteIJt an den Samuelisbiichem." Th~ologische Zeifschrijt 45 (1989): 290-314. Stumm~, Friedrich. "Einige Beobachtungen iiber die Arbeitsweise des Hieronymus bei der Ubersetzung des Alten Testaments aus der Hebraica Ventas." Biblica 10 (1929): 1-30. Sutcliffe, Edmund F. "St. Jerome's Hebrew Manuscripts." Bib/ica 29 (1948): 195-204. Talmon, Shemaryahu. "Double Readings in the !dassoretic Text." Textw 1 (1960): 144-85. ______..'. "Synonymous Readings in the Textual Tradition of the Old Testament." Script . Hierosolymitana 8 (1961): 335-83. ______?"Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Ught ofQumran Manscripts:' Texrus 4 (1964): 95-132. Thackeray, Henry St. John. "The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings." Journal of Theological Studies, 0.5., 8 (1907): 262-78. __~. "The Bisection of Books in Primitive Septuagint MSS." Jou17liJ1 a/Theological Studies, 0.5., 9 (1907-8): 88-98. ___""Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the Septuagint." Journal a/Theological Studies, o.s., 9 (1908): 597-601. Tov, Emanuel. "Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament: A Further Characteristic of the Kal~-Th. Revision." TtxlUS 8 (1973): 78? 92. __--:-::. "On 'Pseudo-Variants' Reflected in the Septuagint." Journal a/Semitic Studies 20 (1975): 165-77. ___'. "Lucian and Proto-Lucian." Revue biblique 83 (1976): 51-54. ___""Three Dimensions of LXX Words." Revue biblique 83 (1976): 529-44. ___""Compound Words in the LXX Representing Two or More Hebrew Words." Biblica 58 (1977): 189-212. ___""The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX: A Survey of the Problems." Jouma//orthe Study a/the Old Testament 7 (1978): 56-68. __~. "Loan-Words, Homophony and Transliterations in the Septuagint" Biblica 60 (1979): 216-36. ___. "Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The Umitati"ns ofTextuaI Rules." Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 429-48. ___. "A Modem Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls." Hebrew Union College Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 166 Annual 53 (1982): 11-27. __-=-' "The Representation of the Causative Aspects of the Hiph'il in the LXX: A Study in Translation Technique." Biblica 63 (1982):417-24. __~_. "The Use ofa Computerized Data Base for Septuagint Research: The Greek? Hebrew Parallel Alignment." Bulletin ofthe Intemotional Orgoni1AJionforSeptuagint and Cognate Studies 17 (1984): 36-47. __-:-" "Some Sequence Differences between the MT and LXX and Their Ramifications for the literary Criticism of the Bible." Journal ofNorthwest Semitic Languages 13 (1987): 151-60. __-=-" "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism." Journal ofJewish Studies 39 (1988): 5-37. Tov, Emanuel and Wright, Benjamin. "Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX." Textus 12 (1985): 148-87. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. "EI estudio de 4QSami : Implicaciones exegeticas e hist6ricas." Estudios biblicos 39 (1981): 5-18. ___""Reflejos de paralelismo hebreo en la Vetus Latina." Sefarad 46 (1986): 463-71. Tsevat, Matitiahu. "Studies in the Book of Samuel I." Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961): 191-216. __~. "Studies in the Book of Samuel II." Hebrew Union College Annual 33 (1962): 107-18. __~. "Studies in the Book of Samuel III." Hebrew Union College Annual 34 (1963): 71? 82. Ulrich, Eugene Charles, Jr. "Horiwns ofOld Testament Textual Research at the Thirtieth Anniversary of Qumran Cave 4." Catholic Biblical Qual1erly46 (1984): 613-36. __~. "Double Literary Editions to Biblical Narratives and Reflections on Determining the Fonn to Be Translated." Perspe?.1ives in Religious Studies 15 (Fall 1988): 101-16. ___""The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran Cave 4: An Overview and a Progress Report on Their Publication." Revue de Qumran 14 (1989): 207-28. Vaccari, Alberto. "The Hesychian Recension of the Septuagint." Biblica 46 (1965): 60-66. Volz, Paul. "Em Arbeitsplan fUr die Textkritik des Alten Testaments." ZeitschriftfUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 54 (1936): 100-113. Voobus, A. "Der Einfluss des altpaliistinischen Targums in der Textgeschichte der Peschitta des Alten Testament." Le museon 68 (1955): 2l5-18. Waard, J. de. "Homophony in the Septuagint." Biblica 62 (1981): 551-61. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 167 Walker, N. "'The Peshitta Puzzle and Its Implications." Yews Testamentum 18 (1%8): 268-70. Walters, Stanley D. "Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1 Samuell." Journal ofBib/ical literature 107 (1988): 385-412. Watson, Wilfred G. E. "The Structure of I Sam 3." Bib/ische Zeitschrift 29 (1985): 90-93. Weissert, D. "Alexandrian Analogical Word-Analysis and Septuagint Translation Techniques." Textus 8 (1973): 31-44. Weitzman, M. P. Review of Principles and Practice ofTextual Analysis, by Vinton A. Dearing. In Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 225-35. Wicke, Donald W. "The Structure of 1 Sam 3: Another View." Bib/ische Zeitschrift 30 (1986): 256-58. Willis, John T. "An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary." Journal ofBiblicalUteraturt' 90 (1971): 288-308. __~. "Cultic Elements in the Story of Samuel's Birth and Dedication." Studia 1heologica 26 (1972): 33-61. ___. "Samuel Versus Eli, I Sam. 1-7." Theologische Zeitschrift 35 (1979): 201-12. Woods, F. H. "The Light Thrown by the Septuagint on the Books of Samuel." Studia Biblica 1 (1885): 21-38. Wutz, Franz Xaver. "1st der hebriiische Urtext wieder erreichbar?" ZeitschriftjUrdie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 43 (1925): 115-19. Ziegler, Joseph. "Die Vorlage der lsaias-Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias-Rolle von Qumran (1QIsa). Journal ofBiblical Literature 78 (1959): 34-59. Zipor, M. A. "A Striking Translation Technique of the Peshitta." JourTUll ofSemitic Studies 26 (1981): 11-20. Reference Works Aland, Kurt, ed. SY1UJpsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. 13th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. S.v. "Names of God in the OT," by Martin Rose. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon ofthe New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2d 00. Translated and edited by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Baumgartner, Walter, and Stamm, J. J. Hebrliisches und Aramliisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3d ed. 5 vals. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967-. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latina Vulgatum versionem ad codicemjidem iussu Pii XlI. Edited by Cum Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 168 et studio monachorum abbatiae pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in urbe ordinis Sancti Benedicti. Rome: Typis Poliglottis Vaticanus, 1926-. Brock, Sebastian P.; Fritsch, Charles T.; and Jellicoe, Sidney. A Classified Bibliography of the Septl?2gint. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Brockelmann, Carl. Lexicon Syriacum. 2d ed. Gottingen: Max Niemeyer, 1928. Brooke, Alan England; Mclean, Nommn; and Thackeray, Henry 81. John, eds. The Old Testamem in Greek. London: Cambridge University Press, 1906-. Dietionnaire de la Bible. S.v. "Vulgate," by E. Mangeno1. ___. Supplement 4. S.v. "Itala," by B. Botte. ___. Supplement 5. S.v. "Latines (versions) anterieures a S. Jerome," by B. Botte. ___. Supplement 6. S.v. "Versions arabes," by B. Botte. . ___a Supplement 6. S.v. "Versions anneniennes," by L. Leloir. ___a Supplement 6. S.v. "Versions coptes," by B. Botte. ___. Supplement 6. S.v. "Versions ethiopiennes," by B. Botte. ____. Supplement 6. S.v. "Versions syriaques," by C. van Puyvelde. ElIiger, K., and Rudolph, W., eds. Bib/ica Hebraica Stuttganensia. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Encyclopadia Biblica. Revised ed. S.v. "Text and Versions: Old Testament," by F. C. Burkitt. EncyclopO!dia Britannica, 1985 ed. Macropcedia. S.v. "Languages of the World" Field, Frederick, ed. Origenis Hexap/orum. 2 valSe Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1875; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg DIms, 1964. Fischer, Bonifatius, ed. Novae concordantiae bib/iorum sacrorum iuxta vulgatam versiont!m eritice editam. 5 vols. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann Verlag Giinther Holzboog, 1977. Fischer, Bonifatius; Gribomont, Jean; Sparks, H. F. D.; and Thiele, W., eds. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vu!gatam versionem. 2d ed. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Wiirttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1975. Glare, P. G. W., ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Hanington, Daniel J., and Saldarini, Anthony J. Targum Jonathan o/the Fonner Prophets. The Aramaic Bible, vol. 10, ed. Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987. Hatch, Edwin, and Redpath, Henry A. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 169 Versions oft~ Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897-1906; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983. Holmes, Robert, and Parsons, James, eds. VelUs Testamentum Graecum cum varUs lectionibus. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1798-1827. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. 1929 ed. S.v. "Septuagint," by Henry St. John Thackeray. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1988 ed. S.v. "Septuagint," by Sven K. Soderlund. ___,a S.v. "Targum," by Bradford H. Young. ___a S.v. "Versions," by Arthur VOObus. 1he Interpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible. S.v., "Poetry, Hebrew," by Norman K. Gottwald. ___a S.v. "Samaritan Pentateuch," by Bleddyn J. Roberts. ___a S.v. "Septuagint," by John William Weyers. ___,a S.v. "Text, OT," by Bleddyn J. Roberts. ___a S.v. "Versions, Ancient," by Bruce M. Metzger. __-=:-' Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Abbreviations, Hebrew Texts," by Michael Fishbane. ___,a Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Conflate Readings (01)," by Shemaryahu Talmon. ___a Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Dead Sea Scrolls," by Geza Vermes. ___. Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Greek Versions (Minor)," by K. G. O'Connell. ___a Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Latin Versions," by J. Gribomont __-:--' Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Manuscripts from the Judean Desert," by Geza Vermes. ___a Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Qere-Jcethib," by G. E. Well. ___. Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Septuagint," by Emanuel Tov and Robert A. Kraft. ___. Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Syriac Versions," by A. VOObus. ___a Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Targums," by M. J. McNamara. ___a Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Textt Hebrew, History of," by Dominique Barthelemy. ___a Supplementary Volume. S.v. "Textual Criticism, OT," by J. A. Thompson. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 170 Jastrow, Marcus. A DictionaryOfl~ Targumim. the Talmud Bobli and Yerushalmi. andI~ Midrashic Lit~ratu1'~. 2 vols. New York: Title, 1943. Kennicott, Benjamin, ed. V~lUS Tesranrenrum I1ebraicl4'm cum variis leetionibus. 2 vats. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1776-80. ___'a Dissertatio generalis in Vmts T~stamenlllm Hebraicum; ClUff varUs ketionibus. a codicibus manuscriptis et impressis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1780. Kittel, Rudolf, cd. Biblia Ikbraica. 3d cd. Stuttgart: Privegierte Wfuttanberlische Bibelanstalt, 1937. Lagarde, Paul de. Librorum Veteris T~stamLnti CanoniclJrwn. Vol. I. GOttinBen: Aedibus Dieterich, Arnold Hoyer, 1883. Levy, J. Chaldiiisc~s W"nerbuch tiber die Targwnim und einen grossen 71Jeil tks rabbinischen Schriftthums. 3d ed. Leipzig: G. Engel, 1866; reprint, CoIope: JOICph Melzer Verlag, 1959. liddell, Henry George, and Scott, Robert. A G"d<-EJrglish Luicon. Reviled by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Pras, 1968. Lisowsky, Gerhard Konkordanz zum hebriJischt!n Allen Testament. 2d ed. Stuttgan: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1981. Mandelkern, Solomon. IT~~~~'Ip. 2d ed. Berlin: F. Margolin, 1925. Margoliouth, J. P. Suppl~ment 10 the Thesaurus Syriacus ofR. Pa)'~ Smith. S.T.P. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927. The Old Testllment in SyriDc According to lhe Peshi{IQ VeniotL Edited on behalfof the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament by the Peshitta Institute, Leiden. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972-. Payne Smith, J. [1. P. MargoJiouthl, ed A Compendious S)'riac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. Payne Smith, R., cd Tht!saurus Syriacus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879-1901. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Sepruagir.ta: id est Vt'tus Tesranaennurr graeC'- ilatQ LXX inl~rpl'rtes. Editio Minor. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwan: Hand'WOnbut:h flir Theolo~~i~WId Religionswiss~nsclulft. 3d ed. S.v. "Bibeliibersetzungen." ___a 3d ed. S.v. "Hesychius.~ by W. Bauer. ___,a 3d ed. S.v. "Lateinische altkirchliche Bibeliibcrsetzllngen." by \V. Thiele. ___? 3d ed. S.v. "Lucian .... by H. Kraft ___,a 3d ed. S.v. "OrientaH.;che BibeIiibersetzungen," by Bleddyn 1. Roberts. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 171 Rossi, Giovani Bernardo de. Variae lec.1iones Veteris Testamenti. 4 vals. Parma: n.p., 1784? 88. Simpsont D. P., txi. Cassell's Latin Dictionary: Latin-English. English-Latin. New York: Macmillan, 1977. Speii>ert Alexander, ed. The Bible in Aramaic. 4 vots. in 5 parts. Leiden: E. J. BriU t 1959? 1973. Svenskt Bibliskt Upps/agsverk. S.v. "Bibeln," by C.-M. Edsman. ____. S.v. "Gamla Testamentet," by Ivan EngnelJ. Swete, Henry Barclay, ed. The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint. 3 vats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887-1912. Tischendorf, Constatin von. Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes: Textum Vaticallum Romanum E~m:/ldatius Edidit. 6th ed. 2 vols. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1880. WeB, Gerard E., ed. Massorah Gedolah iuxta Codicem Le:zingradellsem B 19a. Vol. 1: Catalogi. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971. Ziegler, J., et aI., eds. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentwn Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientanun Gottillgensis editum. GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931-. 1ill.Published Works Adair, James R. "A Methodology for Detennining the Textual Variants Which Are Relevant for Reconstructing the Original Text of the Old Testament: A Case Study of 1 Samuel 3." Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. 1992. Beling, Willard A. "'I1le Hebrew Variants in th?~ First Book of Samuel Compared with the Old Greek Recensions." Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1947. Brock, Sebastjan P. "The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel." D.PhH. diss., Oxford University, 1966. Cook, Joan Elizabeth. "The Song of Hannah: Text and Contexts." Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1989. Israel Antiquities Authority. "PAM 41.766." Photograph. Claremont: Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, 1992. Kelly, Balmer H. "The Septuagint Translators of t Samuel and II Samuel i-xi." Ph.D. di:;s., Princeton University, 1948. Kooij, A. van der. "The Septuagint and the Exegesis of the Bible." Paper presented at the European Science Foundation. Jerusalem: 1984. McReynolds, Paul Robert. "The Claremont Profile Method and the Grouping of New Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 172 Testament Manuscripts." Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1968. Merrill, Arthur L "I Sam 1-12: A Traditio?Historical Study." Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1962. Payne, John B. "A Critical and Comparative Study of the Sahidic Coptic Texts of the First Book of Samuel." Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1949. Rehm, Martin. "Textkritische Untersuchung der Samuel-Konigsbucher und der Chronik." Ph.D. diss., University of Munich, 1937. Ritterspach, Austin David "The Samuel Traditions: An Analysis ofthe Anti-Monarchi<;a1 Source in I Samuel 1-15." Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union and the San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1967. Sanders, James A. Lecture delivered at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 17 August 1989. Schmi~ Joseph. "Septuagintageschichtliche Studien zurn I. Samuelbuch." Ph.D. diss., University of Bres)au, 1941. Textual Criticism Database. University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa. Voogd, Henry. "A Critical and Comparative Study of the Old Latin Texts of the First Book of Samue1." Th.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1947. Zannooi, Arthur Edward "An Investigation of the Call and Dedication of the Prophet Samuel: I Samuel1:1-4:1a." Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1975. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za