Preface, pp. xv, xix, xx. In his description of the first JPS translation of the Torah (1962), H.L. Ginsberg, “The Story of the Jewish Publication Society’s New Translation of the Torah,” BT 14 (1963) 106-13 (110-11) described the policy of the Torah committee as: “. . . where we have been convinced that the text is corrupt, we have made do with the received text if it was at all possible to squeeze out of it <my italics, E.T.> a meaning not too far removed from what we thought might have been the sense of the original reading; and in some of the more hopeless cases—and there are quite a few of them—we have added a note to the effect that the Hebrew is obscure.” Ginsberg thus admits that the translators manipulated the evidence so as to produce an acceptable meaning for difficult or corrupt passages in MT.

M. Müller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (JSOTSup 206; Copenhagen International Seminar 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) argued that the final form of MT was fixed after the beginning of Christianity and should therefore not be used in a Church environment. According to this view, the Greek Old Testament text used in the New Testament, which is close to that of the uncials of the LXX, should remain the determining form of Scripture; however, the Old Testament quotations in the NT are in fact often closer to MT than those uncials.

M. Müller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (JSOTSup 206; Copenhagen International Seminar 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) argued that the final form of MT was fixed after the beginning of Christianity and should therefore not be used in a Church environment. According to this view, the Greek Old Testament text used in the New Testament, which is close to that of the uncials of the LXX, should remain the determining form of Scripture; however, the Old Testament quotations in the NT are in fact often closer to MT than those uncials.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See E. Tov in E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000) 201, 208, 211-12.

See E. Tov in E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000) 201, 208, 211-12.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997); Lange, Handbuch, 415-50.

P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997); Lange, Handbuch, 415-50.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2007) 34.

K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2007) 34.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See E. Tov, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings, Manchester, 1990 (ed. G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars; SBLSCS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 11-47 (31-5); J. A. Duncan, “New Readings for the ‘Blessing of Moses’ from Qumran,” JBL 114 (1995) 273-90; Lange, Handbuch, 163-4.

See E. Tov, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings, Manchester, 1990 (ed. G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars; SBLSCS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 11-47 (31-5); J. A. Duncan, “New Readings for the ‘Blessing of Moses’ from Qumran,” JBL 114 (1995) 273-90; Lange, Handbuch, 163-4.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

These points are made by T. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim & J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 303-23 (306).

These points are made by T. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim & J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 303-23 (306).)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See H. Debel, “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition,” in Changes in Scripture, 65-91.

See H. Debel, “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition,” in Changes in Scripture, 65-91.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See C. Hempel, “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden/Boston, 2010) 193-208; ead., “Sources and Redaction in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Growth of Ancient Texts,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods(ed. M. L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010) 162-81.

See C. Hempel, “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden/Boston, 2010) 193-208; ead., “Sources and Redaction in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Growth of Ancient Texts,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. M. L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010) 162-81.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See Tov, TCHB-3, 107-10; E. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in Madrid Qumran Congress, 1.23-41; A. Lange, “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. N. David and A. Lange; CBET 57; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 43-96.

See Tov, TCHB-3, 107-10; E. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in Madrid Qumran Congress, 1.23-41; A. Lange, “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. N. David and A. Lange; CBET 57; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 43-96.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See S. W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008); G. J. Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2.777-81; M. Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005) 10-29; M. M. Zahn, “Rewritten Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim & J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 323-36; ead., “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on the Scriptural Tradition,” in Changes in Scripture, 93-119; D. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8; London/New York: T & T Clark, 2007).

See S. W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008); G. J. Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2.777-81; M. Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005) 10-29; M. M. Zahn, “Rewritten Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim & J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 323-36; ead., “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on the Scriptural Tradition,” in Changes in Scripture, 93-119; D. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8; London/New York: T & T Clark, 2007).)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See Zahn, “Rewritten Scripture,” 329-31.

See Zahn, “Rewritten Scripture,” 329-31.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

For a discussion, see M. J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?,” Textus 22 (2005) 169-96 (p. 181: “One person’s reworked Bible is another’s Bible”); F. García Martínez, “Las fronteras de ‘lo Bíblico’,” Scripta Theologica 23 (1991-1993) 759-84; J. G. Campbell, “ ‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological Critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8-10th September 2003 (ed. J.G. Campbell et al.; Library of Second Temple Studies 52; London: T & T Clark International, 2005) 43-68.

For a discussion, see M. J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?,” Textus 22 (2005) 169-96 (p. 181: “One person’s reworked Bible is another’s Bible”); F. García Martínez, “Las fronteras de ‘lo Bíblico’,” Scripta Theologica 23 (1991-1993) 759-84; J. G. Campbell, “ ‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological Critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8-10th September 2003 (ed. J.G. Campbell et al.; Library of Second Temple Studies 52; London: T & T Clark International, 2005) 43-68.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See the analysis of J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2010) 188-9. For a longer list of such texts and an innovative analysis, see A. Lange, “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library,” in Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (ed. C. Helmer and C. Landmesser; Oxford: University Press, 2004) 51-107. Note, e.g., the following quotation from CD 16:2-3 referring to Jubilees as authoritative Scripture: “As for the exact determination of their times to which Israel turns a blind eye, behold it is strictly defined in the Book of the Divisions of the Times into their Jubilees and Weeks.” Besides, fourteen or fifteen copies of Jubilees were found at Qumran, showing its popularity among the Qumranites. The book presents itself as divine revelation, with God announcing Israel’s future to Moses on Sinai. A similar claim of authority is implicit in the Temple Scroll, in which Israel’s laws are rewritten according to biblical pericopes, and Deuteronomy is rewritten in cols. LI-LXVI. Written in the first person, the book lends greater authority to its contents, in comparison with the third person used in Scripture. The book is known from five Qumran manuscripts (three from cave 11, and two from cave 4), showing its popularity at Qumran. Likewise, the various parts of 1 Enoch are represented in 20 copies, a very large number when compared with the number of copies of biblical Scripture books. The author of 1 Enoch claims divine inspiration as he presents his visions as having been shown to him by God or his angels. No book quotes Enoch as Scripture, but its traditions, especially the story of the Watchers are widely quoted in the Qumran literature. See VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 192-3.

See the analysis of J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2010) 188-9. For a longer list of such texts and an innovative analysis, see A. Lange, “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library,” in Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (ed. C. Helmer and C. Landmesser; Oxford: University Press, 2004) 51-107. Note, e.g., the following quotation from CD 16:2-3 referring to Jubilees as authoritative Scripture: “As for the exact determination of their times to which Israel turns a blind eye, behold it is strictly defined in the Book of the Divisions of the Times into their Jubilees and Weeks.” Besides, fourteen or fifteen copies of Jubilees were found at Qumran, showing its popularity among the Qumranites. The book presents itself as divine revelation, with God announcing Israel’s future to Moses on Sinai. A similar claim of authority is implicit in the Temple Scroll, in which Israel’s laws are rewritten according to biblical pericopes, and Deuteronomy is rewritten in cols. LI-LXVI. Written in the first person, the book lends greater authority to its contents, in comparison with the third person used in Scripture. The book is known from five Qumran manuscripts (three from cave 11, and two from cave 4), showing its popularity at Qumran. Likewise, the various parts of 1 Enoch are represented in 20 copies, a very large number when compared with the number of copies of biblical Scripture books. The author of 1 Enoch claims divine inspiration as he presents his visions as having been shown to him by God or his angels. No book quotes Enoch as Scripture, but its traditions, especially the story of the Watchers are widely quoted in the Qumran literature. See VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 192-3.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

Tov, TCHB -3, 202-3.

Tov, TCHB-3, 202-3.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren

See Tov, Scr. Prac., 223-5.

See Tov, Scr. Prac., 223-5.)| false
• Über Google Scholar suchen
• Zitierung exportieren