[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

orion XII/Minor Prophets question

I have been intrigued by discussions in articles by E. Tov 
and E. Ulrich on approaches toward text criticism.  Ulrich has 
argued that the purpose of biblical textual criticism is not 
the recovery of a single starting edition but recovery of a history of 
successive literary editions, each expanding on the previous.  This 
seems to be stated as a global principle applicable to all biblical text 
criticism generically.

While there seems to be support for this picture in the Pentateuch, 
Jeremiah, etc. my question focuses on whether there is any evidence 
to apply this picture to the Minor Prophets, that is the Book 
of the Twelve.  That is, is there any evidence that all existing manuscript 
traditions of the XII do not stem from a single production (as a 
collection of XII), i.e. an ur-text.  (This has nothing to do with 
the issue of prior sources--only the issue of an ur-text of XII as 
XII which never received a further literary reworking but only 
scribal transmissions, or to put it in other terms, there is no 
higher criticism on XII once it first became XII, there is only lower 
criticism involved in recovery of the ur-text.)

A missing third chapter of Habakkuk in 1QpHab, while interesting, 
falls short of evidence of a different version of Habakkuk to me for 
the simple reason that the length of peshers, and when to stop 
quoting, seems naturally accounted for to me by considerations of 
number of columns or content units rather than to assume a principle 
of "one scroll, one complete book" (which in any case seems 
inconsistent with the Isaiah and the Psalms pesharim).  

A more substantial point, which I have read several times, is that a 
Cave 4 copy of XII has the book of Jonah following Malachi.  In DJD 
XV (Ulrich et al, XII texts by R. Fuller), this text is 4QXII(a).  
There this claim is presented as a fact.  There is no single fragment 
with Malachi followed by Jonah on it.  The support for the claim 
is a fragment with the end of Malachi with three letters from a 
following column which are suposed to be identified with expected 
letters consistent with another fragment with Jonah 1:1-5.  This is 
found in the photograph at Plate 76 and the transcription on p. 129.

While there is evidence of a further column of writing following the 
end of Malachi, its identification as belonging to the Jonah column 
does not look right to me.  Specifically, where Fuller reads a Waw 
(start of col. 5, line 10) and He Kaph (start of col. 5, line 11)--which 
is the claim to a match with what is expected in those positions for 
the Jonah column--only the He looks like a correct reading.  The other two 
letters do not look like Waw and Kaph to me (yet they must be, in 
order to make the Jonah match claim).  Since there is no other 
evidence for the Malachi-Jonah sequence than this single point of the 
match with these three letters, if these readings are not secure the 
Malachi-Jonah sequence claim must be abandoned as lacking any 

I solicit input or views both on the specific 4QXII(a) reading and 
on the larger question of evidence for variant text traditions of XII 
which can demonstrate multiple literary editions as distinguished from 
an ur-text--for the Book of the XII.  (There is the issue that 4QXII(a) 
seems to have _something_ following the end of Malachi--the only 
question is what.)

Greg Doudna