Uncovering Ancient Editing

Documented Evidence of Changes in Joshua 24 and Related Texts

Ville Mäkipelto

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9783110600117
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

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

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

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

1 Introduction

1.1 Documented Evidence of Editorial Processes

The aim of this study is to reconstruct the textual and editorial history of Josh 24 and related texts as a test case for understanding the ancient editorial processes that produced the Hebrew Bible. First, I will undertake a text-critical analysis of all the extant textual witnesses. This analysis illuminates the latest stages of the textual and editorial history. Second, I will offer an outline of the editorial history of Josh 24 that is not visible in variant versions, in the light of patterns observed in the text-critical evidence. This twofold analysis is then complemented with a collation and examination of various editorial techniques utilized by Second Temple Jewish scribes in creating Josh 24. This offers tools and guidelines for studying the editorial history of the Hebrew Bible in a more reliable way. Moreover, it offers an opportunity to discuss the methodological relationship of textual, literary, and redaction criticism.1 Therefore, although focusing on a single text, this study has several implications for the basic methodology of biblical criticism.

The Hebrew Bible is a product of an ancient creative scribal culture.2 Most of the texts of which it is comprised are not the work of one author, but have gone through several stages of successive editing.3 For ancient Near Eastern compositions, this seems to have been the norm rather than the exception.4 Despite this, is it possible to uncover the editorial processes at play in the birth and transmission of the texts in the Hebrew Bible? How can a modern scholar reach methodologically sound conclusions on the complex histories behind these texts? Is the reconstruction of the earlier developmental stages of a given text viable if differing versions are not preserved in the textual witnesses?

Recently, there has been a surge of literature focusing on the editorial processes related to the Hebrew Bible in the light of documented or “empirical” evidence.5 It has traditionally been peculiarities – such as repetitions, contradictions, and inconsistencies – observed in single texts that have led scholars to assume the presence of editing and the usage of different sources.6 The proponents of focusing on documented evidence of editing have rightly noted that since we possess variant versions of the same texts this is where we should start. Such variant versions include parallel passages within single textual traditions (e.g. 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18 or 2 Kgs 18 and Is 36 in the MT) and variant versions between different textual traditions (e.g. the LXX and MT versions of Jeremiah). This endeavor has been greatly fueled by the full publication of the evidence from Qumran, a newfound appreciation of the “rewritten” and Samaritan sources, developments in the textual criticism of the LXX and other ancient translations, and a growing awareness of the editorial processes of other texts from the ancient Near East.

Meanwhile, many have questioned the validity of studying editorial processes altogether, especially when the assumed prehistory of texts is in question. Some argue that the concept of an ancient “editor” or “redactor” is not useful at all.7 Others accept that biblical texts have a long editorial history but argue that this history cannot be reconstructed due to the complexity of the editorial processes.8 Furthermore, many argue that the study of the “final text” should be at the center of critical research. This “final text” is usually the diplomatically chosen Masoretic version of the Hebrew Bible (MT). This approach results in the application of various synchronic and literary methods.9 Finally, some proponents of the importance of orality in the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures have questioned the validity of studying text-related scribal practices as such.10

This study participates in this discussion with a fresh examination of Josh 24 and related texts. The book of Joshua was chosen since it offers a wealth of documented evidence of editorial processes. The principal textual witnesses reveal that in the Late Second Temple Period the book was circulating in various forms and was being edited by different scribal circles.11 The last chapter of the book is important since it offers a plethora of textual variants between the MT and the LXX, and it has been used as evidence for various competing models for the wider editorial processes related to the composition of the historical books. For this reason, Josh 24 allows us to discuss editorial processes ranging from minor scribal changes to larger compositional issues. Josh 24 is also related to many other texts – e.g. Judg 2:6–9 and Josh 5:2–9 – which allows textual analyses of editorial phenomena beyond this chapter. Moreover, Josh 24 illuminates the phenomenon of editing the ending of an ancient composition.

Even though Josh 24 has been the subject of many studies, scholarly opinions on the nature, date, and character of this theologically important text vary greatly, justifying a fresh examination. Josh 24 has also not yet been examined with a focus of integrating textual evidence of changes closer into the literary- and redaction-critical discussion. Furthermore, the evidence from the LXX has not been adequately analyzed and utilized in the discussion. The focus of this study, which is to better understand editorial techniques in the light of text-critical evidence, is also new in relation to Josh 24.

1.2 Current Trends in the Study of Editorial Processes

The traditional methodology of biblical criticism makes a clear distinction between textual criticism (“lower criticism”) and literary/redaction criticism (“higher criticism”). In this traditional framework, the textual development of biblical books is envisioned as a process with two distinct phases: the composition of the text, followed by the transmission of the text. Textual criticism deals with the latter, and seeks to recover the original form of a text as it left the hands of the final author or redactor. In other words, the textual developments studied in textual criticism are explained as secondary developments that have emerged – often accidentally – in the later copying of the manuscripts. Literary and redaction criticism, in turn, aims at reconstructing the earlier prehistory of a text. Its task is to find out what sources were used, and how and why they were put together in the composition of a text. This traditional view is seen in several books on methodology.12 Many early theories on the history of the book of Joshua also rely on this traditional view.13

Two current trends are confronting the traditional view and challenging the way in which the editorial history of the Hebrew Bible is being researched. First, the methodological boundaries of textual, literary, and redaction criticism have been revealed by many as being artificial.14 This is due to the existence of large-scale editorial differences in the textual evidence of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, LXX Jeremiah preserves a version of the book which is approximately 15% shorter than MT Jeremiah. Their differences cannot be explained in any other way than by assuming that they present two distinct phases in the editorial development of the book of Jeremiah.15 Further large-scale editorial differences are witnessed, most notably, by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Samaritan sources. Since textual criticism illuminates the latest literary development of such texts, it is not possible to make a clear distinction between textual and literary/redaction criticism.16 Second, as already mentioned above, several scholars argue that the study of the editorial history of the Hebrew Bible should begin with an evaluation of textual evidence from variant versions. These documented cases of editing provide guidelines and controls for using the methods of literary and redaction criticism in outlining the literary prehistory of texts. These two trends should be kept in mind when examining recent studies on ancient editorial processes.

The strongest plea to integrate documented evidence of editing closer to the study of the literary and redaction history of the Hebrew Bible was put forwards by Jeffrey Tigay in the edited volume Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. When parallel versions of the same text exist, Tigay referred to these versions as empirical evidence of editorial processes. Several such instances can be found in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature. The articles in the collected volume focus on the editing of, for example, the Pentateuch, 1 Samuel, Joshua, Jeremiah, Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, and specific editorial techniques or traces of editing (e.g. conflation, assimilation, and the stylistic criterion for uncovering various sources). The overall aim of studying empirical evidence in the volume is to help in uncovering changes in the literary and redaction history of texts; that is, the editorial processes that have usually been studied based on clues within the single MT.17

To be sure, Tigay was not the first scholar to integrate textual evidence into the study of literary and editorial processes. Julius Wellhausen is often mentioned as one of the early pioneers who integrated textual evidence from the LXX to his literary and redaction critical models. In his study on the books of Samuel, for example, he often noted that the LXX holds earlier readings than the MT. In this manner, his reconstruction of the literary and redaction history of Samuel was preceded by a thorough analysis of the textual evidence.18 In the case of Joshua, one could also mention the 1955 study Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation by Eduard Nielsen. When Nielsen analyzed texts from Joshua and other historical books, he began with a thorough analysis of the changes visible in the textual witnesses (MT, LXX, and Peshitta). Only after the evaluation of these changes did he continue to the reconstruction of other layers and the dating of texts.19

After the publication of Tigay’s volume, however, the amount of studies focusing on documented evidence of editing has seemingly increased. One can already speak of a new paradigm in the field of text-historical studies. Several studies have examined textual evidence of editing in single texts, compared the editorial processes visible in different texts, or focused on specific editorial techniques. Meanwhile, they have also discussed the relationship of textual, literary, and redaction criticism. To create the backdrop for my study, I will next introduce and evaluate the claims of some of these studies.

In The Kings – Isaiah and Kings – Jeremiah Recensions Raymond F. Person seeks to illuminate the redactional processes of the book of Kings with “the use of text critical controls.” The focus of the study is on 2 Kgs 18:14–20:19 and 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30. The textual evidence consists of the MT and LXX versions of these passages, as well as their parallel versions in Isa 36:1–39:8 and Jer 52:1–34 in the MT, the LXX, and 1QIsaa.20 Person’s conclusions have great implications for redaction criticism. According to his analysis, the MT versions of both passages in Kings seem to be late in relation to the other versions. Since most models of Deuteronomistic redactions have ignored the LXX and Qumran versions, they “all fail methodologically”. Person posits that the earliest version of the accounts, recoverable with the help of textual criticism, and the latest version present in the MT present two distinct Deuteronomistic redactions of Kings. He also contends that it is not enough to argue for redactions based on language and themes, but that there must be a “significant difference between the redactional layers in order to distinguish one redactor from another.”21 Without commenting on the details of Person’s textual analysis, it is important to highlight the methodological steps taken in the study. First, one needs to compare all the textual evidence and make conclusions on the editing that can be directly observed. Only then should one discuss the possible editorial developments not discernible by comparing different textual witnesses.22

This methodological order stands in stark contrast with the methodology employed by Michaël N. van der Meer in his analysis of texts from the book of Joshua. His study Formation and Reformulation. The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses seeks to clarify the relationship of textual, literary, and redaction criticism through the analysis of three case examples (Josh 1, 5:2–13, 8:1–35). Van der Meer refers to the recent trend of seeking an “empirical basis” for the diachronic study of texts, but argues that there are several problems with this approach.23 The main methodological question in his study is what the implications of the textual evidence for methodology should be: “Should theories concerning the development of the biblical books be made dependent upon the often scanty and ambiguous textual evidence? Or conversely, should the diffuse variety of textual data be explained on the basis of a well-tested theory of literary developments leading up to their final form?” Van der Meer seeks to follow a third path in which both textual criticism and literary/redaction criticism are first kept apart and undertaken in their own right, and only the results are compared at a second stage.24 In practice, he turns to “generally accepted theories concerning the redaction history of Joshua” and compares these theories with his analysis of the LXX and Qumran material.25 There might be some heuristic merit for this methodological order; it is certainly good to evaluate the results o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Preface
• Contents
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Textual Witnesses to the Book of Joshua
• 3 Documented Evidence of Editing in Joshua 24
• 4 Literary and Redaction Criticism of Joshua 24 in the Light of Documented Evidence
• 5 Evidence of Editorial Techniques Used by Ancient Scribes
• 6 Conclusions and Discussion
• Abbreviations
• Bibliography
• Index of Ancient Sources
• Index of Modern Authors