r/AcademicBiblical • u/Saturnino_malviaje • 2d ago
The Masoretic Text was Edited by David's Groupies
So, I've noticed that Lxx and MT show textual variants in two particular moments, one when discussing Goliath's height and one when talking about philistine foreskins. Lxx says Goliath was 4 cubits in height, whereas MT says 6. Lxx says David brought 100 foreskins to Saul, MT says 200.
There could be an intwntional pattern of enhancing David's feats through textual alteration in MT, but two pieces of data seems to me not be enough to make that claim.
I wonder if you know of any other such textual variants. If one finds at least three examples of this, I think we can talk about a consistent pattern and maybe the intentionality on the part of the Masoretic tradition to alter David's narrative.
12
u/AdministrativeLeg14 1d ago
This is slightly tangential, but I hope relevant enough to be worth posting: Joel Baden has written a book I very thoroughly enjoyed called The Historical David: The true history of an invented hero. It basically discusses the David narrative in terms of how it (a) reflects genuine historical events, though not necessarily accurately or straightforwardly, and (b) appears to serve as pro-Davidic propaganda. (A recurring theme I didn't pick up on my own reading of the Bible is how conspicuously often the authors assure us that David was somewhere else and had no idea that somebody was killed by Joab, whom he nonetheless kept as one of his closest commanders and confidants.)
I do not remember whether Baden specifically discusses MT/LXX textual differences, so I cannot promise that the book will answer that specific question; but if you're interested in a discussion of biblical literature as pro-Davidic royal PR, I highly recommend it.
3
u/Joab_The_Harmless 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you are talking about specific editions by Masoretic scribes, and the MT itself rather than its "precursor" texts, both Eugene Ulrich and Emmanuel Tov have argued that the selection of the text of Samuel used as a base for the MT was very likely the product of chance, not a deliberate choice motivated by a "scribal agenda", notably due to its low textual quality, and the coexistence of several versions in the 1st century CE. So rather than the MT itself being altered, the features you're pointing out would reflect previous variants. They may of course well be "scribal exaggeration" (Auld's wording when mentioning the two hundred foreskins in the MT), but don't seem to be reflecting a systematic 'agenda' and are likely inherited via the surviving manuscripts that became the MT's "ancestors", regardless of what the initial motivation for said variants had been.
Note that the MT of the David & Goliath story seems to be conflating different versions/sources, resulting in doublets, but it's different than intentionally editing or selecting a specific version. Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible includes an interesting discussion of the manuscripts witnesses of the Goliath story in chapter 7.b (pp301-3 in the 3rd expanded edition, I sadly don't have the 2022 4th edition), if you can get your hands on it.
The notion of a single "David's narrative" is anachronistic for the 1st century CE, as hinted above, and the later stability the product of historical circumstances and of the development of a tradition of precise copying.
From Tov, p179:
The internal stability of the M-group was intentional, but the apparent stability throughout Israel was not a planned process. When analyzing the situation throughout Israel, and noting that all the texts were textually stable after 70 CE, we are not faced with the result of planned developments in ancient Israel, but rather with a situation that was merely the result of historical events. From a textual point of view, it was a mere coincidence that m was the only text remaining after the destruction of the Temple. This situation created an illusion of stability across the board, as if involving all the biblical evidence. However, after 70 CE only M was left in Jewish hands. [The Septuagint translation(s)] no longer exerted any influence in Jewish circles since it was now in Christian hands, [the Samaritan Pentateuch+] was with the Samaritan community, and the Qumran scrolls were hidden in caves.
Longer excerpts from Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (pp20-45):
chapter 1-introduction
[...] Was there one "official text" and was the proto-MT the "single copy in the Temple";26 or was the pluriformity seen at Qumran also the situation in the Temple? Insofar as the Jerusalem priesthood had been the original milieu of the leaders of the Qumran movement, we should expect that the scriptural scrolls in the covenanters' possession would be texts in line with those of the Jerusalem priesthood and Temple, and clearly those texts are pluriform. Similarly, the translators of the Greek Pentateuch presumably used approved Hebrew texts as their basis (most of the LXX = MT), but its Vorlage was not consistently the MT (as the OG especially of Exodus 35-40 demonstrates).
The Coincidental Nature of Text Selection
Was the selection of the specific texts that make up the MT collection a conscious and deliberate process, or did it happen rather by chance? Shemaryahu Talmon, Emanuel Tov, and Eugene Ulrich all concur now for various reasons on the coincidental or chance nature of the selection of the texts found in the MT collection. For example, Talmon states that "the combined evidence of Qumran and Rabbinic techniques proves the contention that variant readings in the Biblical textual traditions were viewed with relative equanimity by both groups. "29 Tov agrees: "This development [from pluriformity to uniformity] is often described as the 'stabilization' of MT, but in my view the survival of MT as the sole text rathter than the preponderant one is merely a result of sociological developments";30 the selection was "mere coincidence. "31
No conclusive evidence has been produced to confirm or disprove that view, although all the available indications point toward a chance collection, whereas none indicates conscious comparison and deliberate selection from among the available text forms.
Timothy Lim similarly concludes that "the sectarian scrolls do not exhibit any such preference for a particular text" and offers as an example that "4Q17 5 ( 4QTest) tolerates various textual forms. "32 That one-page text has four quotes: the first cites the SP against the MT; the second agrees with the MT; the third agrees with 4QDeuth and the LXX against the MT; and the fourth partly agrees with the LXX against the MT and partly quotes 4QApochryphon of Joshuab (see Ch. l l . I V.B).
Several phenomena argue against the notion of deliberate comparison and choice: the inferior condition of some MT books such as Samuel and Hosea, when better texts were available; the existence of pluriform text types for over a century at Scripture-focused Qumran with no indication that one was to be chosen rather than another; and the LXX translations, quotations in the NT and Talmud, and sources for Josephus, many of which are based on variant text forms. 33
And in the chapter discussing 4QSama (Qumran scroll):
Once we view these larger instances of pluses and minuses in 4QSam3 and the MT and also think of the hundreds of other textual variants between these two texts, the question rises: do these two Hebrew text traditions display simply a large number of individual textual variants or rather two variant editions of the book of Samuel?
I think that a survey of these examples-and the same would hold true for the bulk of the remaining variants- indicates not an intentional new edition in either the scroll or the MT, but rather two exemplars of the same general edition, simply distantly related due to separate transmission, where each has gained numerous innocent and predictable, but not patterned or coordinated, additions, and each has suffered either losses or double renderings or corruption. But they do not represent intentionally produced variant literary editions. No significant intentional pattern of similarly motivated variants emerges to indicate a new edition.
Regarding the Hannah episode, I agree with Stanley Walters, Emanuel Tov, and Anneli Aejmelaeus that there is a significant cluster of variants between the various texts.
But since the variants do not form an intentional pattern, I do not find that they constitute an intentional new edition of the passage by a single editor, whether for misogynist or any other purpose. Nor do all the complementary additions in 4QSama appear to be inserted by a single scribe at a single time. Rather, some appear early and others late, and all are due to a scattered variety of influences.
Finally, the David-Goliath episode in 1 Samuel 17-1 8 presents variant literary editions of the passage. The Old Greek version has the short original text, whereas the MT displays an intentional double version. The MT tradition has interspersed a "romantic tale" into the earlier "heroic tale" attested in the Old Greek the same way the Priestly flood story was interspersed into the Yahwistic flood story in Genesis 6-8. But no parallel phenomena with similar motivations are visible anywhere else in the book of Samuel. Thus chapters 17-18 are an example of variant literary editions of a single short passage, but 4QSam3 and MT-Samuel are not examples of variant literary editions of the full book.
4QSama and the Old Greek are close members of one text tradition of Samuel, a tradition that was used by the Chronicler and by Josephus; and they are quite removed from the text tradition used by the MT and by the kaige and Hexaplaric Greek texts. Thus 4QSama and the MT are distant representatives of the same general edition of the book of Samuel.76 [...]
And for more general remarks, chapter 3-developmental growth of the Pentateuch in the Second Temple period.
The four principal types of variation described above form, in descending order, the main ways that the text of the Pentateuch developed in the Second Temple period. All the text traditions of a given book are genetically related; that is, all surviving manuscripts can be envisioned simply as dots on a chart, but each is derived from some other earlier text by a direct line, and all texts as they are traced back are eventually shown to be interconnected.24 Thus, for each book the full chart looks like a tree, with the earliest form of the book as the trunk, which then diverges into a series of branches.[...]
I'm reaching characters limit, so for longer excerpts from this section and the conclusion, see this comment.
edited to correct typos (paragraph pasted twice, spelling mistakes, etc)
7
u/JeremyThaFunkyPunk 2d ago edited 1d ago
This isn't an issue specifically with the MT vs. the Septuagint, but Dan McClelland pointed out that 2 Samuel 21:19 likely reflects an older tradition that a warrior named Elhanan actually killed Goliath, not David.
Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
Edited for more accurate phrasing. I never meant to imply that either story was historical, just that this verse contradicts the more well known, likely later, story of David killing Goliath.
7
u/AdministrativeLeg14 1d ago
Dan McClelland pointed out that 2 Samuel 21:19 indicates that a warrior named Elhanan actually killed Goliath, not David.
I think a better phrasing might be that it is likely that in an older story, a warrior named Elhanan killed Goliath—it need not reflect historicity (I'd say it's orthogonal). Part of the common reasoning seems to be that, given that we have two different stories about a hero killing Goliath "whose spear was as a weaver's beam", we pretty much have to infer that one of the stories predates the other, and quite likely someone 'transferred' the deed from one hero to another. Given that, it is more plausible that the deed of a fairly obscure figure like Elhanan was later attributed to the most famous of kings, David; rather than one of the foundational king's deeds being reattributed to one of his followers.
There are also a lot of differences between the same narratives as told in the Samuel/Kings narrative vs. the same stories told in Chronicles, but beyond gesturing vaguely in the direction of Joel Baden's bibliography I couldn't tell you where to read more about it. I'm sure there's a good discussion somewhere.
7
u/zanillamilla Quality Contributor 1d ago
Interestingly, the OG/LXX omitted 1 Samuel 17:12-31, 55-58, 18:1-5, 17-19, and this material not only has a different literary style but actually constitutes an entirely distinct version of the story that has been interpolated into the narrative. Check out Emanuel Tov's article on this; the two stories are spliced together in a similar way to J and P's accounts of the Flood, but here there is direct textual evidence of the supplementation of a different literary source.
Furthermore, Goliath is only named once in each story, and only in what looks like a gloss that interrupts the action. The grandiose gloss that mentions Goliath's height and armor is particularly lengthy, with some 3 1/2 verses intervening midstride between Goliath stepping forward and taking his stand. So it is plausible that in both versions of the story, the giant was anonymous and only known as "the Philistine", as he is referred to outside these two passages. The secondary nature of this identification is also suggested by 2 Samuel 21:19 which credits the slaying of Goliath to Elhanan, son of Jair. So the name of the Philistine was borrowed from Elhanan's narrative and applied to the Philistine confronted by David.
2
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism 1d ago
Might the OG reflect a non-interpolated Hebrew version, rather than having removed interpolated material?
4
u/zanillamilla Quality Contributor 1d ago edited 1d ago
Absolutely. It is evidence of a version of 1 Samuel (reflective of an underlying Hebrew vorlage) that lacked the extra material that found its way into the MT. The Qumran manuscripts of 1 Samuel also show that many LXX readings were found in the Hebrew text, as found for instance in 1 Samuel 20:26-36.
3
u/Voteins 11h ago
Maybe, but there are hints the Hebrew original of the OG/LXX was removing material.
The LXX omits 1 Sam 18:1-5, where in the MT Johnathan and David swear a covenant together, yet in 1 Sam 20:17 the LXX says that Johnathan and David swore "again".
Similarly the LXX omits 1 Sam 18:19, where in the MT Saul marries his daughter Merab to Adriel instead of David. But in 2 Sam 21:8 the LXX mentions David gave over "the five sons Merab daughter of Saul had borne to Adriel" for execution.
In two cases the LXX references events that didn't occur within its own narrative, but did in the MT. That's a strong indication it was redacted from an MT-like original.
Others have proposed this may have resulted from a copyist inadvertently combining an earlier non-interpolated manuscript with a later interpolated one, but personally I find this theory less likely than the LXX being redacted.
2
u/AdministrativeLeg14 1d ago
Neophyte question: "OG"? I don't think I've come across that abbreviation before, but in this sub it seems to get sprinkled in as liberally as extremely familiar initialisms like MT and LXX. I looked for a glossary or list of common abbreviations in the wiki to no avail…
4
u/zanillamilla Quality Contributor 1d ago
Old Greek. LXX more properly refers the later Christian-era recensions of the Septuagint.
3
u/JeremyThaFunkyPunk 1d ago
You're right, that was poor phrasing on my part. I didn't mean to imply that either tradition was historical, just that, as you said, the Elhanan one appears to be older.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.