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

The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis

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

Executive Editor

Marjo C.A. Korpel Assistant Editor

Paul Sanders

Volume 7

The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis Edited by

Raymond de Hoop Marjo C.A. Korpel Stanley E. Porter

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The impact of unit delimitation on exegesis / edited by Raymond de Hoop, Marjo C.A. Korpel, Stanley E. Porter. p. cm. — (Pericope, scripture as written and read in antiquity ; 7) “This volume contains selected papers from the meetings in Edinburgh (2006) and Vienna (2007) plus two extra articles dealing with the same theme, namely the impact of unit delimitation on exegesis”—Pref. Includes index. ISBN 978-90-04-17162-6 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, Textual—Congresses. 2. Bible. O.T.—Paragraphs—Congresses. I. Hoop, Raymond de. II. Korpel, Marjo C.A. (Marjo Christina Annette), 1958- III. Porter, Stanley E., 1956- IV. Pericope Meeting (6th : 2006 : Edinburgh, Scotland) V. Pericope Meeting (7th : 2007 : Vienna, Austria) VI. Title VII. Series. BS1136.I47 2008 221.6—dc22 2008040533

ISSN 1568-3443 ISBN 978 90 04 171626 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

Contents R. de Hoop, M.C.A. Korpel, S.E. Porter, Preface R. de Hoop, Unit Delimitation and Exegesis: Isaiah 56 as an Introduction to the Theme

vii

1

R. de Hoop, Textual, Literary, and Delimitation Criticism: The Case of Jeremiah 29 in ˜ and Ì

29

J. Dekker, Bind Up the Testimony: Isaiah 8:16 and the Making of the Hebrew Bible

63

G. Goswell, The Divisions of the Book of Daniel

89

M.C.A. Korpel, The Demarcation of Hymns and Prayers in the Prophets (I)

115

J.R. Lundbom, Delimitation of Units in the Book of Jeremiah 146 S.E. Porter, Pericope Markers and the Paragraph: Textual and Linguistic Implications

175

G.T.M. Prinsloo, Petuh.ot/Setumot and the Structure of Habakkuk: Evaluating the Evidence

196

K. Spronk, The Line-Acrostic in Nahum 1: New Evidence from Ancient Greek Manuscripts and from the Literary Analysis of the Hebrew Text

228

S. Tatu, The Abraham Narrative (Gen. 12:1–25:11) in Some Ancient and Mediaeval Manuscripts: The Exegetical Implications of Delimitation Criticism

241

Abbreviations

268

Index of Authors

269

Index of Biblical Texts

275

Preface This volume contains selected papers from the meetings in Edinburgh (2006) and Vienna (2007) plus two extra articles dealing with the same theme, namely the impact of unit delimitation on exegesis. The volume opens with Raymond de Hoop’s introductory reading held at the Edinburgh Meeting of the Pericope group. In a second article he deals with the problem of unit delimitation in ˜ and Ì of Jeremiah 29. Two extra articles were added. Jaap Dekker writes about the setumah after Isaiah 8:16 and its meaning for understanding the making of the Hebrew Bible, in a discussion with Karel van der Toorn about his recent book on Scribal Culture. Greg Goswell demonstrates that for the book of Daniel the text divisions in the Aramaic text are significant for interpretation and serve several purposes for guiding the reading of the text. Following are articles on the demarcation of hymns and prayers in the prophets, with the examples of Hosea 6:1-3 and Isaiah 42:1012, by Marjo Korpel, and on the delimitations of units in the Book of Jeremiah, by Jack Lundbom. Stanley Porter writes on pericope markers and the paragraph in language, and discusses two examples from the New Testament, Mark 12:13-27 and Romans 1:21-25, as well as the implications of paragraphing for the interpretation of these texts, and concludes that emphatic words seem to be more important markers for delimitation than syntax. Gert Prinsloo investigates the major delimiters in several traditions of the book of Habakkuk and evaluates their meaning for exegesis, as does Silvio Tatu for the book of Genesis. Klaas Spronk takes up unit delimitation for the theory of an acrostichon and discusses its meaning for the interpretation of Nahum 1.

The Editors: Raymond de Hoop, Marjo Korpel and Stanley Porter

Unit Delimitation and Exegesis Isaiah 56 as an Introduction to the Theme∗ Raymond de Hoop Pretoria – South Africa† /Jayapura (Papua) – Indonesia

1 A Short Anecdote: A Student in 1986 Let me start this introduction with a short anecdote from 1986, now more than twenty years ago. In the first year of my (now socalled) bachelor’s degree at the Theological University in Kampen in 1985-1986, I followed a course on Old Testament exegesis with Dr. Willem van der Meer, alongside the lectures on Classical Hebrew for advanced students delivered by Professor Johannes de Moor in the Semitic Institute at the Theological University in Kampen. For the course on OT exegesis, I had to write a final exegetical paper on Isaiah 56:1-8 that had to be finished within a week. Together with the assignment of our subject, we received guidelines on how to write the paper, describing in brief the different steps which are important for the exegetical process, a kind of abstract from Barth/Steck (Barth & Steck 1984). One of the first steps we had to take was the decision on the delimitation of the pericope we wanted to interpret: ‘where does the pericope start, where does it end?’1 Apparently considered to be a quite simple and easy step to take, the paper was to be written ∗

This paper is the introductory paper read at the Pericope seminar during the SBL International Meeting 2006 at Edinburgh. The occasionally somewhat colloquial style has not been changed, though the final conclusions may have been changed and formulated more to the point. Thanks are due to Professor Dr. Wim A.M. Beuken (Leuven) and Professor Dr. Ulrich Berges (M¨ unster) who were kind enough to read an earlier draft of this paper, offering several valuable suggestions for its improvement. Thanks are also due to Mr. David J.D. Kroeze, M.A. (Kampen), who provided me with data concerning the readings in mss of the Targum. A final word of thanks is due to Dr Wilfred Watson, who kindly scrutinised the English of this paper for me. No need to say that I alone am responsible for any remaining errors and for the views expressed in this paper. † Research for this paper has been conducted as a Research Fellow of the University of Pretoria, South Africa.

1

2

R. de Hoop

Plate 1: Isa. 56:1-9 as laid out in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

2

within these guidelines. However, as I already mentioned, I was also attending lectures on Classical Hebrew verse by Johannes de Moor, dealing especially with Deutero-Isaiah. There I was made familiar with terminology like setumah and petuh.ah, with special reference to the – then rather recent – publication by Josef Oesch on Setuma und Petucha.3 I was rather enthusiastic regarding this subject and 1 In fact this step cannot be found in Barth & Steck 1984, or in quite recent studies like Talstra 2002, for instance. It is described, however, in the first studies of the so-called Kampen School; cf. Van der Meer & de Moor 1988, vii; Van der Meer 1989, 38. 2 Image from Elliger & Rudolph 1990. Used by permission from the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Two images from pp. 762-3 in BHS have been merged to the present image in order to enable the present reproduction. 3 Oesch 1979.

Unit Delimitation and Exegesis: Isaiah 56

3

for that reason I planned to write an extensive paragraph on the delimitation of Isaiah 56:1-8 in my exegetical paper. The reason for this decision was my discovery that the text of BHS contained an interesting problem regarding the delimitation of the pericope. While there are setumot after verses 2, 3 and 5 the next setumah is found after verse 9 and not after verse 8 as the assignment for my exegetical paper had suggested and BHS also seems to favour (see Plate 1). The editor of BHS apparently prefers to end the pericope with verse 8 as read in ˜ as follows:

hw±hy yn∞:doa} µ~aun“ 8a la´-r:c]yI yj´¢d“nI ≈B´`qæm] 8b .wyx…âB;q]nIl] wy£l;[; ≈B´àqa} d/[ü 8c 8a 8b 8c

Word of the Lord, gathering the outcasts of Israel I will gather to him still more to those already gathered.

However, the effect of the suggestion by means of setumah in ˜ is the following. Instead of ending the passage with this promise in verse 8, the passage ends with a remarkable invitation:4

hw±hy yn∞:doa} µ~aun“ la´-r:c]yI yj´¢d“nI ≈B´`qæm] .wyx…âB;q]nIl] wy£l;[; ≈B´àqa} d/[ü yd:=c; /t∞y“jæ lK¡o 4 .r[æY:êBæ /t¡y“jæAlK; lko¡a‘l, Wyt;Èae 8a 8b 8c 9a 9b

8a 8b 8c 9a 9b

Word of the Lord, gathering the outcasts of Israel I will gather to him still more to those already gathered. All the beasts of the field come to eat, all the beasts of the forest.4

Because virtually all modern translations and commentators agreed with the delimitation of the text in BHS,5 this had to be studied, I 4

The colometry of the Hebrew text is according to the Masoretic accentuation; the colometry of the translation follows the suggestion of BHS to transpose the atnah. two words further on. Cf. Freedman & Cohen 1974, 35-9; Watson 1976, 243; Watson 1981, 328-9 (1994, 340-1); Beuken 1986, 59; Koole 1995, 66. 5 ¨ JPS; KBS; LB; NBG, NBV, NEB, RSV, etc.; Cf. e.g. Buber 1958, 177-8; EU; Whybray 1975, 196-9; Westermann 1981, 247-52; Beuken 1989a, 19-20; Koole 1995, 41-2.

4

R. de Hoop

thought . . . I started my investigations by consulting Josef Oesch’s book. There I learned that not only ˜L but also other Hebrew mss read a setumah after verse 9.6 Subsequently, I tried to find out whether other traditions also read a break after verse 9 or before. However, apart from the book by Oesch, I was unable at that moment to find any additional information on the subject of delimitation in the other sources. This was so, because information on how to find and trace these delimitations in the ancient texts was still lacking then.7 Unfortunately, my investigations ran completely out of hand, finally resulting in my being unable to finish my paper on Isaiah 56 in the time allowed and I had to write a paper on a text in the Pentateuch. 5

56:1

6

2

7 3

8

4

9

Plate 2: Isaiah 56:1-9 in Codex Leningradensis 6

8

Oesch 1979, 221-2, T26+. On this, cf. Korpel 2000. 8 Photographs by Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman, West Semitic Research with 7

Unit Delimitation and Exegesis: Isaiah 56

5

56: 1

3

6

10

Plate 3: Isaiah 56:1-9 in 1QIsaa

9

Now, after twenty years, let me invite you to join me in taking another look at this ‘stumbling block’ to a student’s exegetical paper. Does research into the delimitation of this text in ancient mss help us to clarify this passage, does it shed any new light on this text, or can we safely ignore this testimony?

2 Isaiah 56 in Ancient Manuscripts The text of BHS is based on the reading of ˜L ,10 in which all three setumot after verses 2, 3 and 5 are clearly visible, similar to the one the collaboration of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center. Courtesy of the Russian National Museum (Saltykov-Shchedrin). 9 Picture courtesy of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. 10 A ˜ and ˜C both agree with ˜L .

6

R. de Hoop

 56:1

56:9 end 56:9

-

Plate 4: Isaiah 56:1-9 in 1QIsab

11

after verse 9 (Plate 2).12 As already stated, this delimitation of the Hebrew text is found not only in ˜, but also in the manuscripts from the Desert of Judah, 1QIsaa and 1QIsab (plate 3 and 4).13 11

Picture courtesy of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. The space after verse 8 is too small to indicate a setumah. 13 According to the table in Ulrich 2003, 295 (in contrast to Oesch, 1979, 221-2, T26+), 1QFIsab does not read a pause either after Isa. 56:9, or after vv. 2, 3 and 5. However, because Ulrich does not consider the passage itself in detail, we are not able to discuss the arguments for his reading. Yet in our view the space after Isa. 56:9 (plate 4, above) is quite clear and correctly classified as a larger ‘Spatium’ by Oesch 1979, 249 n. 7. 12

Unit Delimitation and Exegesis: Isaiah 56

7

3

8

4 9

10

5

11 6

56:1 57:1

6bB 2

7

Plate 5: Isaiah 55:10–57:2 in Codex Sinaiticus

14

However, this delimitation is not restricted solely to the Hebrew text tradition. It is remarkable that next to the Hebrew witnesses, neither manuscripts of Ì (e.g. ÌS ;15 plate 5), Í (e.g. Íb = 7a1; plate 14

Image of Codex Sinaiticus courtesy of the Biblical Manuscripts Project, http://purl.org/BibleMss. 15 In ÌQ Isa. 56:9 starts immediately after v. 8 without a space, an upper dot was apparently inserted in the manuscript after the text was written.

8

R. de Hoop 55:5

56:8 6 10

57:1

56:1

Plate 6: Isaiah 55:5–57:12 in Codex Ambrosianus

16

16 Image of Codex Ambrosianus courtesy of the Biblical Manuscripts Project, http://purl.org/BibleMss.

Unit Delimitation and Exegesis: Isaiah 56

9

617 ), Ê,18 nor ◊19 read a delimitation after verse 8, but if a break were to be read it would be after verse 9. This seems to imply that here we are dealing with a quite uniform tradition regarding the delimitation of this unit after 56:9, in contrast to the later tradition to delimit the text after 56:8.20

3 Isaiah 56:9: Positive or Negative? Modern commentators unanimously agree that Isa. 56:9 does not belong to the preceding section (56:1-8),21 but the Ancients apparently did not agree with that judgment. But then, what is the implication of this reading? In my view, we are not allowed to avoid answering this question, because the witnesses of this reading-tradition are much too strong to ignore. At this moment I can only reflect briefly on some of the implications. Generally it is assumed by scholars that the invitation to the beasts of the field and the forest has a negative tone, because of the somewhat similar text in Jer. 12:9:22

yli+ yŸtil;j}n" [˛Wb•x; fyI['Ÿh' 9A h;yl≤-[; bybhi∞s; fyI[æ`˝h' 9B .hl…âk]a;l] Wyt;èhe hd