Post-Priestly Additions and Rewritings in Exodus 35-40: An Analysis of MT, LXX, and Vetus Latina (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.reihe)

In this study, Domenico Lo Sardo shows that the section of MT Exod 35-40 dedicated to the construction of the Tabernacle involves textual and literary problems. It has different textual forms according to MT, LXX, and Vetus Latina (Monacensis ms): LXX Exod 35-40 shows a different order of the literary material and its extension is shorter than the MT. One of the most important differences is the absence of MT Exod 36:8b-34 in the LXX. The Monacensis ms is even shorter than the Greek text. In a text-critical analysis, the author demonstrates that the 'Short Hebrew Vorlage' behind the Latin manuscript is the oldest text. In the MT there was post-priestly editorial work marked by expansions, rewritings, and reinterpretations. Employing literary criticism, the author proves that with the expansion of Exod 36:8b-34 and the stressed use of the term miškān (Tabernacle), MT points to legitimate the centralization of the Jerusalem Temple Cover Title Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Tables Abbreviations Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Preamble 1.2 Identification of the Textual and Literary Problem 1.3 Previous Problem in Exod 25–31 and 35–40 1.4 Working Hypothesis of the Monograph 1.5 Working Methodology: Text and Literary Critical Method Chapter 2: History of Research from Origen to the Qumran Discoveries 2.1 Preamble 2.2 The Origins 2.3 Change of Direction 2.4 The Most Significant Stages of the Question 2.5 The Most Recent Studies 2.6 Qumran 2.7 Summary and Assessment Chapter 3: The Construction of the Sanctuary: Text-Critical Study of Omissions and Additions in Exod 35–40 3.1 Preamble 3.2 Text-Critical Study of MT Exod 36:8b–34 (LXX Exod 37:1–2) 3.2.1 Description of the Variant 3.2.2 Quantitative and Qualitative Differences between LXX–MT Exod 26:1–29 and MT–Orh Exod 36:8aß–34 3.2.2.1 Differences in the Vorlage 3.2.2.2 The Dependence of the Hexaplaric Text from LXX Exod 26 in Comparison with MT 3.2.2.3 Identification of Different Authors for the Two Sections (Exod 26// MT Exod 36:8aß–34) 3.2.2.4 Variations in Spelling 3.2.3 A Further Observation 3.2.4 Toward a Conclusion 3.3 Text-Critical Study of LXX Exod 38:18–20 (Absent in MT) 3.3.1 Description of the Variant 3.3.2 Exod 38 in LXX, MT, and VL 3.3.3 Exod 38:18–20: Addition, Omission, or a Different Vorlage? 3.3.3.1 A Further Observation 3.3.3.2 A Possible Solution 3.3.3.3 Toward a Conclusion 3.4 Text-Critical Study of Exod 37:17–24 (LXX 38:13–17) 3.4.1 Description of the Variant 3.4.2 A First Observation on MT–SP–LXX Exod 25:38–39 3.4.3 Exod 37 in LXX, MT, and VL 3.4.3.1 A Further Observation 3.4.3.2 A Possible Solution 3.4.3.2.1 Intertextual Comparison 3.4.3.2.2. Extrabiblical Data 3.4.3.2.3 Link between Biblical and Extrabiblical Data 3.4.4 Toward a Conclusion 3.5 Text-Critical Study of Exod 39:33–36, 41 (LXX 39:14–15, 16–21) 3.5.1 Description of the Variant 3.5.2 A Wider Comparison 3.5.3 Exod 39 in LXX, MT, and VL 3.5.3.1 A Further Observation 3.5.3.2 A Possible Solution 3.5.4 Toward a Conclusion 3.6 Text-Critical Study of Exod 40:2, 17 (LXX 40:2, 15) 3.6.1 Description of the Variant 3.6.2 A Wider Comparison 3.6.3 The Term νουμηνία in LXX and Its Counterpart in MT 3.6.4 For Further Study 3.6.5 Toward a Conclusion 3.7 The Results of the Text-Critical Approach Chapter 4: From the Textual Form of LXX to MT: A Literaryand Redaction-Critical Study of MT Exod 35–40 4.1 Preamble 4.2 The Origin of the אֹהֶל מוׄעֵד and Its Redactional History 4.2.1 The אֹהֶל מוׄעֵד in Literary-Critical Perspective 4.2.1.1 J. Morgenstern’s Proposal (1918) 4.2.1.2 F.M. Cross’s Proposal (1947) 4.2.1.3 M. Haran’s Proposal (1962) 4.2.1.4 V.W. Rabe’s Proposal (1966) 4.2.1.5 R.J. Clifford’s Proposal (1971) 4.2.1.6 M. Görg’s Proposal (1967) 4.2.2 A Critical Evaluation of the Proposals Addressed 4.2.3 cאֹהֶל מוׄעֵד: Its Semantic Background and Use in Context 4.2.3.1 Etymology and Lexical Differences 4.2.3.2 Biblical Use of the Term מוׄעֵד 4.2.3.3 Extrabiblical (Non-Jewish) Use of the Term מוׄעֵד 4.3 Non-P or Pre-P Identity of the אֹהֶל מוׄעֵד in Exod 33:7–11*? 4.3.1 The Context and Genre of Exod 33:7–11* 4.3.2 The אֹהֶל מוׄעֵד of Exod 33:7–11* in Tradition- and Redaction- Historical Perspective 4.3.2.1 M. Noth’s Proposal (1961) 4.3.2.2 A.H.J. Gunnweg’s Proposal (1990) 4.3.2.3 R. Albertz’s Proposal (2011) 4.3.2.4 M.D. Konkel’s Proposal (2008) 4.3.2.5 C. Dohmen’s Proposal (2003) 4.3.3 Toward a Critical Evaluation of the Proposals Addressed 4.4 Toward a Proposal 4.4.1 Some Critical Considerations 4.4.1.1 Preliminary Issues: Problems of the Critica Textus 4.4.1.2 Formal Issues: Syntax and Vocabulary 4.4.1.3 Literary Issues 4.4.2 A Possible Urkontext 4.4.3 Toward a Summary 4.5 For Further Study 4.5.1 The אֹהֶל מוׄעֵד of Numbers 11:16, 24, 26* 4.5.1.1 Content 4.5.1.2 Formal Aspect 4.5.1.3 Exegetical Framework 4.5.2 The אֹהֶל מוׄעֵד of Deut 31:14–15, 23* 4.5.2.1 Content 4.5.2.2 Formal Aspect 4.5.2.3 Exegetical Framework 4.5.3 Toward a Conclusion 4.6 The Literary Expansion of MT Exod 36:8b–34 between ֹ אהלֶ מ וֹעדֵ and מִשְׁכּןָ 4.6.1 From אֹהֶל מוׄעֵד to מִשְׁכָּן as from P to post-P 4.6.2 From אָהֳלִיאָב // אֹהֶל to בְּצַלְאֵל as from P to Post-P 4.6.3 Taking Stock, Consequences, and Relaunch Chapter 5: Tent and Tabernacle: From a Postexilic Theology of Transcendence to a Post-Priestly Theology of Immanence 5.1 Preamble 5.2 P and Post-P: Distinct Identities and Goals 5.2.1 Formal Analysis of Exod 26 5.2.1.1 Exod 26:1, 7 5.2.1.2 Exod 26:2, 8 5.2.1.3 Exod 26:3, 9 5.2.1.4 Exod 26:4–5, 10 5.2.1.5 Exod 26:6, 11 5.2.2 Critical Review of the Formal Elements 5.2.3 Toward a Proposal 5.3 Historical Framework and Date 5.3.1 Ancient Reasons for Rebuilding the Present and Legitimizing the Future 5.3.2 Postexilic Reconstruction in a Universalistic Key 5.3.3 Particularist Integralism of Second Zadokism 5.4 Toward a Hermeneutic: Divine Transcendence (אֹהֶל מוׄעֵד) and Immanence (מִשְׁכָּן) 5.4.1 Symbolic Aspect: The Elements 5.4.2 Functional Aspect: The Context 5.4.3 Literary Aspect: Theology (or Theologies) 5.5 Toward a Conclusion: Tent, Tabernacle, or Temple? Chapter 6: Conclusion Appendices Appendix A: Summary Tables Regarding Exod 36:8ab–34 (LXX 37:1–2) Appendix B: Summary Tables Regarding Exod 39:33–36, 37–41 (LXX 39:13–15, 16–21) Appendix C: The Architectural Plan of the Tabernacle: The מִשְׁכָּן in Exod 26:1–37//36:10–40 1. The Literary Context in Exodus 2. Semantics of the Term מִשְׁכָּן 3. The Architectural Structure of the מִשְׁכָּן Models of a Solution 4. The Temple as a Prototype of the מִשְׁכָּן 5. Toward an Interpretation Appendix D: Text-Critical Synopsis Bibliography Index of Biblical References Index of Authors Cited Index of Subjects In this study, Domenico Lo Sardo shows that the section of MT Exod 35-40 dedicated to the construction of the Tabernacle involves textual and literary problems. It has different textual forms according to MT, LXX, and Vetus Latina (Monacensis ms): LXX Exod 35-40 shows a different order of the literary material and its extension is shorter than the MT. One of the most important differences is the absence of MT Exod 36:8b-34 in the LXX. The Monacensis ms is even shorter than the Greek text. In a text-critical analysis, the author demonstrates that the 'Short Hebrew Vorlage' behind the Latin manuscript is the oldest text. In the MT there was post-priestly editorial work marked by expansions, rewritings, and reinterpretations. Employing literary criticism, the author proves that with the expansion of Exod 36:8b-34 and the stressed use of the term miškān (Tabernacle), MT points to legitimate the centralization of the Jerusalem Temple In this study, Domenico Lo Sardo shows that the section of MT Exod 35-40 dedicated to the construction of the Tabernacle involves textual and literary problems. It has different textual forms according to MT, LXX, and Vetus Latina (Monacensis ms): LXX Exod 35-40 shows a different order of the literary material and its extension is shorter than the MT. One of the most important differences is the absence of MT Exod 36:8b-34 in the LXX. The Monacensis ms is even shorter than the Greek text. In a text-critical analysis, the author demonstrates that the'Short Hebrew Vorlag e'behind the Latin manuscript is the oldest text. In the MT there was post-priestly editorial work marked by expansions, rewritings, and reinterpretations. Employing literary criticism, the author proves that with the expansion of Exod 36:8b-34 and the stressed use of the term miškān (Tabernacle), MT points to legitimate the centralization of the Jerusalem Temple. "The textual and literary nature of the Tabernacle section in MT Exodus 35-40 is complex. In this work, Domenico Lo Sardo argues for the priority of the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Vetus Latina and the Masoretic Text pointing to legitimate the centralization of the Jerusalem Temple with the expansion of Exodus 36:8b-34"--Back cover Die Textgeschichte von Ex 35-40 ist komplex. Domenico Lo Sardo argumentiert in dieser Studie für die Präzedenz der in der Vetus Latina übersetzten Textfassung und den Masoretischen Text als erweiterte Legitimationserzählung für den einen Tempel in Jerusalem