Joseph’s Food Politics as Life-Keeper of Many People: A Close Rereading of Genesis 47:13–26

The Septuagint reading predominantly influences the interpretation of Genesis 47:13-26 (primarily v. 21). Despite a positive portrayal of Joseph, he is also seen as Pharaoh’s accomplice to enslave the Egyptian people. This connection with slavery activities contradicts the traditional image of Joseph as the life-keeper of many people. Solution for the negative portrait of Joseph usually refers to the Masoretic Text, although it is not a reference to many modern Bible translations and commentaries. The Septuagint as a reference, in this case, is indeed difficult to reject. However, that does not mean that Joseph promotes the slavery of the Egyptian people throughout the land, but rather an ancient form of state capitalism. This article draws on textual criticism, word studies, form criticism, and agricultural knowledge background in the ancient Middle East. The contribution of this research is to show that, instead of enslaving, Joseph formulated an Egyptian food politics in the larger context of Joseph’s narrative reality as the life-keeper of many people.

Understanding and Translating Proverbs 25.27: Weighing the “Honorable” Options

Proverbs 25.27, particularly the second verset (27b) as found in the Masoretic Text, has created problems for interpreters. This paper identifies those problems and then lists, summarizes, and evaluates the major options that interpreters have offered as well as offering a couple of new options based on recognizing a double entendre.

The Double Text of Jeremiah Revisited

From the time of the Church Fathers, it has been recognized that the Greek translation (LXX) of the book of Jeremiah is shorter than the received Hebrew text (MT). Modern assessments of this textual situation have viewed the LXX as between one-eighth and one-sixth shorter than the corresponding Masoretic text of the book of Jeremiah. Since manuscripts have been found at Qumran that seem to confirm the antiquity of the shorter LXX recension, many explanations for this editorial discrepancy have focused on the phenomenon of editorial expansion within the Masoretic tradition. This chapter presents a range of counter-evidence demonstrating that the LXX has been subjected to a sustained process of editorial concision.

The Last Stage of the Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah

Presumably the book of Jeremiah underwent several editorial stages for which there is no evidence in the textual witnesses. At the same time, the last stage of the literary growth of that book is reflected in the elements that the Masoretic Text (MT) has in excess of the LXX and the Qumran scrolls 4QJerb,d. These differences are not scribal, but editorial, so that the latter have been named “edition I” and MT “edition II,” with the understanding that edition II was based on a literary form like edition I. This chapter describes the many views that have been expressed in the post-Qumran era on the content, tendencies, and dating of these two editions. It points out that the assumption of “layers” may be more appropriate than “editions.” In the wake of the research of Bogaert, this paper adds an excursus on the apocryphal book of Baruch that was surprisingly appended to the short, not the long, text of Jeremiah. Presumably, when edition I was expanded with Baruch, edition II was already in existence, but maybe at a different place or in a different environment. In any event, we do not know why Baruch was appended to the short and not the long edition.

Names of God in Vulgate and the Italian translations of the Old Testament

The present publication expands the analysis of the Old Testament translations into different languages. This line of studies was initiated by the works of the late French scholar Philippe Cassuto and one of the authors of this publication. The purpose of the article is to look at the strategies applied in translating the Old Testament names of the Supreme Being into Latin (the Vulgate version) and modern Italian. This purpose is two-fold: by doing so, we also expand the data base of the Old Testament terms‘ renditions in different languages. The article provides the full nomenclature of the names of the Supreme God in the Old-Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the Old Testament, concentrates on their semantics and grammatical structure, and explains the contexts of their use. A canonical Russian-language translation is used as a reference base to illustrate the fate of the original names of the God in translation. The widely-accepted English-language translations of the Old Testament are included to provide a broader perspective on translation strategies applied to this particular aspect of the Old Testament texts. The analyzed Latin and six modern Italian-language translations demonstrate a considerable degree of uniformity in translating the names of God. The Latin and the Italian translations apply the philological strategy to translating the Holy Bible (as opposed to another option presented by the typology of the Bible translation – the ideological strategy). Notwithstanding the relative lexical uniformity of the translations, they demonstrate the differences between Catholic and Protestant versions. The analysis of the Italian translations of the Old Testament contributes to the typology of the Bible translation and ultimately makes an input to the general theory of translation.

Genesis 49:4—The Route of Facile Textual Emendation vs. Appreciation for Literary Brilliance

This article responds to M. J. Albanese, “What the Holy Seed Defiled: The Textual Problem of Genesis 49:4,” VT 69 (2019): 1‒18. Instead of proposing textual emendation to solve the so-called “problem” in Gen 49:4, the present article uses a literary-stylistic approach to argue in favour of the Masoretic Text (MT).

„Ištar“ und „Marduk“ als jüdische Protagonisten, Purim als neues Fest der Befreiung: Zur Theologie und zum historischen Ort des Esterbuches

This article deals with two theological paradoxes in the Book of Esther (Masoretic Text). Arguably, the most striking characteristic of the book is that it does not mention God. At the same time, the two Jewish protagonists bear names that are identical with, or at least strongly reminiscent of, those of the Babylonian deities Marduk and Ištar. While the author of Esther seems to completely ignore the cultic laws of the Pentateuch, at the end of the book he strongly emphasizes the foundation of the Purim feast. Although each of these four topics has been dealt with in scholarship, they are seldomly—and if so, only partly—investigated with regard to their mutual coherence. In aiming to do this, the present article undertakes to reevaluate the theological profile of the Book of Esther (as expressed in the Masoretic Text) as well as its historical location. As for the latter question, the intriguing statement related to “relief and deliverance coming to the Jews from another place” in Est 4:14 provides an important hint.

On the Vorlage, Tendenz, and Scribal Negligence of AT Esth 1:10–15

In this article, a section of the Alpha-Text Esther story (1:10–15) is brought to the foreground to reveal the hitherto unrecognized hints that point to the Hebrew Vorlage, the literary Tendenz, and the scribal negligence unparalleled in either the Septuagint or the Masoretic text. All these literary phenomena suggest that the Alpha-Text and the Masoretic text versions reflect two variant archetypes of a Hebrew text, but this does not mean that both archetypes cannot overlap at places. When the archetypes do overlap, some of the unique readings in the Alpha-Text actually reflect later exegeses or misunderstandings that are dependent on the readings preserved in both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. The later exegeses in particular help locate the Sitz im Leben of Alpha-Text Esth 1:10–15 in the Hasmonean period and thereafter when the Jewish-gentile relationship is strained.

Elimelech or Abimelech? A Study on the Textual Variant of the Name of Noemin’s Husband in LXX-Ruth

This paper analyses the textual variant of the name of Noemin’s husband in the book of Ruth: Elimelech according to the Masoretic Text and Abimelech according to the Septuagint. It investigates if this textual variant is linked to a different Hebrew Vorlage, whether it is carried out during the process of translation of the text in its Greek form, or whether it is due to its transmission in its Greek form. Finally, this study analyses the literary criticism of this variant by showing how a coherent character is created by name and through actions and how, in this way, God’s presence is accentuated in the narrative.

Deuteronomy 34:6: Moses’ burial in text and translation

Despite the simplicity from a linguistic perspective, the formula וַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ in Deuteronomy 34:6 has been at the origins of a vivid discussion amongst its interpreters. Most of the time, this formula, in which an explicit subject is missing, is interpreted as having YHWH, who is mentioned in the final part of the foregoing verse, as its subject. As such, it is YHWH who is considered as the one who buried Moses. Nevertheless, other interpretations are equally possible. In Hebrew, a third person singular verbal form can also be used in order to refer to an unidentified subject (‘one’). A comparison of the Masoretic Text of Deuteronomy 34:6 to the Versiones makes clear that the latter apparently has been the interpretation of the Septuagint translator, even if one cannot be sure whether its plural verbal form ἔθαψαν is because of the interpretation of the Greek translator or to a different Hebrew Vorlage. Moreover, the comparison of the different textual witnesses of Deuteronomy 34:6 makes clear that a conclusive answer to the question whether the singular (וַיִּקְבֹּר) or the plural form (וַיּקְבְּרוּ) is the ‘more original’ seems to be impossible.Contribution: Refraining from historical-critical or theological prejudices, the present article evaluates the possibilities as to the issue who buried Moses, according to Deuteronomy 34:8. It demonstrates that on the basis of textual evidences as witnessed by the Versiones, a univocal interpretation should not be imposed to the text. Interpreting difficult Bible passages is one of the core focusses of HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies.