50

AN INDEX TO ENGLISH PERIODICAL LITERATURE ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

(A Prospectus)
William G.

Hupper

24 Parker Street Melrose, Mass. 02176 U.S.A.

The upsurge in recent years of Abstracting and Indexing Services has made periodical literature in the fields of Religion and Theology more accessible than ever to the scholarly world./l/ Also at the disposal of scholars are several analytical works/2/ which are narrower in scope than the broad categories of such publications as Elenchus Bibliographicus Biblicus. Though these analytical works will never be out of date, some of them have gone for more than 10 years without being supplemented or revised. In sharp contrast, access to articles from journals which have ceased publication, or are not in the main-stream of the Indexing Services, have gone uncataloged. In the field of Old Testament Studies, the availability of periodical literature through indexing is especially limited./3/ To date, there is no comprehensive index to Old Testament Periodical Literature. Further, no society of learning, or school, has attempted an Old Testament equivalent to VJeston Colleges New Testament Abstracts./4/ It was precisely the lack of an Old Testament Index which prompted a one-man project in an effort to produce such a bibliographic tool. Had the extent of material published which incorporates articles on the Old Testament and cognate studies been fully realized, such a project may never have been undertaken, An Index to English Periodical Literature on the Old Testament including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (with Special Section on the Dead Sea Scrolls) [hereafter IEPLOT]/5/ has now been over 7 years in compilation. To date, over 250 journals have been cataloged on 3x 5 cards under 900 divisions and subdivisions, with a total of about 50,000 entries. Plans are for the completed index to include some 300-350 journals and may be comprised of over 75,000 articles.

51

The main object of the work has been four-fold: all the periodical material on the Old Testament in English (within certain human limitations and editorial considerations)from the first year of issue until the journal ceased publication or to the present (currently through 1969)./6/ (2) To especially index journals which may be obscure, but none the less important, concentrating particularly on 19th Century Literature, as well as more contemporary material. (3) To use a schema similar to that It was felt in this way that the many used by Metzger in IPLCG. facets of Old Testament Studies could be presented in a more precise manner, allowing for narrowly defined subject headings. It will also have the advantage of presenting all the material in one or two concise volumes, rather than yearly as do EBB, IRPL, and IZBG. (4) It should be emphasized that although the work is limited to English, Foreign Journals have been searched for their English Language contents. It was necessary to confine the work to English Language articles owing to the enormity of the material published, and the compilers own limitations. It will be left to others to index Foreign Language Journals not yet included in the present Abstracting and Indexing publications.

Purpose:

(1)

To

gather

library

Kind and Number: Serials by definition appear to differ from to library. Some have elected not to include certain An-

nuals or Proceedings in their periodical classifications, while others find it advantageous to catalog them with the periodicals. IEPLOT, in an attempt to obtain as broad a base as possible, has included not only the standard works, e.g. JBL, JNES, and JAOS; but also incorporates such volumes as: Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (in Jerusalem); Scripta Hierosolymitanai Textus (Annual of the Hebrew University Bible Project); Vox Evangelica; and University of California Publications in Semitic Philology. Reference has also been made to the English Summaries in Hebrew Pub-

lications, typically:
Israel

Lesonenu; Tarbiz;

Yediot

(Bulletin of the
and Transac-

Exploration Society); and Zion.

Proceedings

tions from various societies are also covered: Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research; Society of Biblical Archaeology (Proceedings and Transactions); Proceedings of die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika; Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions. Finally, journals which appear to have been neglected elsewhere in bibliographic material have been included in IEPLOT. A sampling of titles includes: Bangalore Theological Forum; Society of Biblical Studies Bulletin (Madras, India); Ghana Bulletin of Theology; The Iliff Review; and Milla wa-Milla (The Australian Bulletin of Comparative Religion).

52

v~1ile it has already been Divisions and Cross References: noted that 11etzgers work was used as a guide in preparing the outline for IEPLOT, it was immediately apparent that the divisions for Old Testament subjects would by necessity far exceed the categories found in IPLCG. It is impossible within the confines of this article to reproduce the entire table of contents for IEPLOT, which runs over 35 pages, but the main headings should suffice to communicate the basic schema.
I.

Bibliographic Articles - (includes articles on Specific Books of the Old Testament; Apocrypha; Pseudepigrapha; Rabbinical Writings ; Theological Articles; & Bibliographies
of Modern

Scholars).

II.

Biographical Studies - (includes Biographical material on Old Testament Persons; Ancient Near Eastern Civilization; Cultural Studies; Historiography; Social Customs; Government(s); Geography (General & Specific); Archaeological Material (General Studies & Specific Places and Digs); Pottery Finds; Scarabs & Seals.
Critical Studies of the Old Testament
A.

III.

Textual Criticism of the Old Testament (includes studies on Specific Manuscripts (other than Qumran); Hermeneutics; Translation Problems; and specific Old Testament Translations; Discussions of Kethibh-Qere.

B.

Criticism of the Old Testament articles on background material; Canon; and specific 0. T. Books subdivided according to the Hebrew Bible, i.e., Pentateuch ; Prophets; & Hagiographa).

Literary

(includes

C.

Various other Divisions in this section include articles on Religiongeschichte; Comparative Religions; Form Criticism; Literary Style; Philological & Grammatical Studies in Hebrew and cognate Languages.

D.

Exegetical Studies - Divided according to the Hebrew Bible and subdivided by chapter and verse./7/

53

IV.

Studies of Literature

Contemporary with the O.T. Accadian; e.g. Egyptian; Persian; Greek; Moabite; Arabic; etc. - subdivided by Language

Families).

A.

Studies on the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Books (Textual, Literary Critical & Exegetical Subdivisions). Rabbinical Writings (Talmud; Mishna; & Targums) and Early Jewish Writers (i.e. Philo;

B.

Josephus).
V.

Theological Studies concerning the Old Testament (Divisions include: Theology Proper; Ethics; Prophecy, & Eschatology).
The Influence and Interpretation of the Old Testament in Worship; The Fine Arts; and Culture in General - also includes Methods of Study. Studies in the Qumran Literature & Community (Divided into Community Studies & Texts Discovered in General - nearly 100 subdivisions).

VI.

VII.

Cross references between sections have been included in the division headings, e.g., The Scribes as a Religious Group (See also: Professions and Trades (i.e. Scribe as a Profession) and Methods of Writing. An index of subjects and authors is also planned which is necessitated by the diversity of divisions and the immensity of the material covered./8/

Completion and Funding: It has been the compilers good fortune to have had access to the excellent Theological Libraries in the Boston, llassachusetts area. Since periodicals, as a rule, do not circulate,/9/ it has been necessary to work on location, often requiring entries to be written in longhand. Some libraries have facilities for typing which have helped to speed production. Yet even with the depth of material at hand, there are still series which hopefully can be included in IEPLOT that cannot be found in the Boston area./10/
is being completed without outside financial assistance, except for a small one-time grant from the American Theological Library Association. ATLA has requested first publication rights and has tentatively secured a publisher for IEPLOT. The

project

54

The prospects for additional grant money are being investigated with the help of Boston Theological Institute and interested friends./11/ It appears that it will be in the publishers hands within a few years, perhaps sooner if sufficient funds can be procured to assist with travel expenses; typing costs;/12/ and possibly to subsidize a brief leave of absence which would allow the compiler to devote a month or two full time to expedite the project toward completion.
Due to the many Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Cuneiform words that appear in article titles,/13/ it has been decided in cooperation with the publisher to present IEPLOT in a typescript format. This will help to keep printing costs to a minimum.

Comments, criticism, and general questions on structure; divisions ; journal inclusions, and the like are most welcome. On occasion, bibliographies on specific subjects/14/ have beengathera few friends from the material presently incorporated in IEPLOT, but such queries are not encouraged as they are extremely time consuming.

ed for

Sample Pages: Three sample pages follow. Additional entries be added as the project continues. Numbers in parenthesis at may the beginning of headings are intended as a division guide and will be included in the final draft. An asterisk before an entry indicates the article will be found under more than one heading, though not necessarily in the sample pages. /1/
Works such as Elenchus Bibliographicus Biblicus which began in 1920, and Index to Religious Periodical Literature starting in Of more recent vintage 1949 are familiar tools to all scholars. are Internationale Zeitschriftenschau fDr Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete (1951ff.) and Index of Articles on Jewish Studies first printed in 1969 covering journals for the year 1966, and continuing yearly thereafter. This does not include several works published covering specific denominational material.
Bruce M. Three well known works published by E. J. Brill are: to Literature on the Index Periodical (RePaul, Apostle Metzger, printed in 1970 with additions and corrections), 3013 entries; Bruce M. Metzger, Index to Periodical Literature on Christ and the Gospels, 1966, 10090 entries; A. J. Mattill, Jr., and Mary Bedford Mattill, A Classified Bibliography of Literature on the Acts of

/2/

the Apostles, 1966, 6646 entries, including references to commentaries and dissertations. Biblical Bibliography by Paul-#mile Langevin covers some 70 journals from 1930 to 1970 is a recent addition to bibliographical material as well as A Preliminary Near East Periodical Index by John M. Elliott which covers only five

55

journals,
tion to be

but is

trial publication for published later.

a

larger loose-leaf edi-

are found to some degree in works mentioned in n. 1, Religious and Theological Abstracts and Biblical Bibliography (cf. n. 2),but by and large material from the 19th and 20tr Century has been neglected, with the exception of those journals Some English Language articles on the found in Pooles Index. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha can be found in Bibliographie zur

/3/
as

Articles
as

well

Jdisch-Hellenistischen und Intertestamentarischen Literatur which covers 1900 through 1965, but here again 19th Century material is not included. Qumran Studies by comparison have several excellent
indexes:

Bibliography

of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1948 -1957

compiled

by William Sanford LaSor, originally published in the Fuller Library Bulletin (Fall, 1958), and continued by A Classified Bibli-

ography of Finds in the Desert of Judah 1958 -1969 by Bastiaan Jongeling, published by E. J. Brill, and more recently Joseph A. Fitzmyers The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study published by Scholars Press in 1975. /4/
to

The Catholic Biblical Association has announced its intentions publish Old Testament Abstracts to begin in 1978.

/5/

Refer to Abbreviations and Periodical List at the end of the article for all future abbreviations.

/6/ This is an arbitrary date chosen only because the project was A supplemental volume could be produced to include begun in 1970. articles through 1977 to bring it up to date with the proposed Old Testament Abstracts. (cf. n. 4).

/7/

Chapters

and

verses

are

ion with larger blocks of passages single verses, e.g.:

arranged in an inverted pyramid fashbeing first and narrowing to

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDIES

OF PASSAGES IN GENESIS

Multiple

Mixed Texts

Chapters 1-10 Chapters 1-3 Chapters 1:1 - 3:5 Chapter 1

vss. 1:1-5
v.

Chapters

2:1 - 3:8

etc.

/8/

There is no subdivision for Menorah, but it will be listed in the index of articles indicating that it has been cataloged under The Tabernacle and its Contents, which is one of the divisions.

56

/9/ The generosity of the Congregational Library in allowing the withdrawal of entire series of journals at one time to facilitate the compiling of the index gave an inital boost to the project.
These include Southwestern Evangel (later as Southwestern Journal of Theology - Original Series); Columbia Theological Seminary Bulletin; and Journal of the Faith Theological Seminary Alumni

/10/

Association

as

examples.

/11/

ATLA has offered to back any future from other foundations or societies.

applications

for grants

/12/
/13/
of

Current estimates

indicate IEPLOT will

&dquo;The formula

run

about 2500 pages.

Cf. Wainwright, G. A.,

26 27

l6~g ~ ~T in
and

mythology,&dquo; SBAP,
ZA ,

(1904), 101-104; (1912-13),

Prince,

J.

the light Dyneley,

T 0--4 -T ,~~
/14/

258-261.

of Periodical Literature on Semitic Grammar and article covering 60 journals, compiled by the author, is available at Andover-Harvard Theological Library, and Gordon Conwell - Goddard Library.

Bibliography
a

Syntax,

31 page

typescript

(27)

STUDIES CONCERNING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL

Albright, William F., &dquo;The Topography

ZAW, 44

of the Tribe of

Issachar,&dquo;
JPOS,

(1926), 225-236.
Israelite Tribe of

Bergman, Abraham, &dquo;The

16

Half-i~4anasseh,&dquo;

(1936), 22i+-25i+.
on

*Berlin, Li., &dquo;Notes

Genealogies
JQR, 12

of the Tribe of Levi

in 1 Chron.

XXIII-XXVI,&dquo;
ment,&dquo;
,

(1899-1900), 291-298.
The Problem of the Old Testa-

Cook, Stanley A., &dquo;Simeon

AJT, 13

and Levi:

(1909), 370-388.
6th

Gray,
Groen,

G.

Buchanan, &dquo;The Lists of the Twelve Tribes,&dquo; Exp.,

Ser., 5

(1902), 225-2~0.

J.

J., &dquo;Historical and Genetic Studies

on tiie Twelve Tribes of Israel and Their Relation to the Present Ethnic Composition of the Jewish People,&dquo; JQR, N.S., 53 (1967-68), 1-13.

57

*Jacobs, Joseph, &dquo;Are there Totem-Clans in the Old Testament?&dquo; 8 (1885-86), 39-41.

SBAI

Maynard, J. A., &dquo;The rights and revenues of the tribe of Levi,&dquo; JSOR, 14 (1930), 11-17. North, Robert, &dquo;Israels Tribes and Todays

Frontier,&dquo;

CBQ, 16

(1954), 146-153.
*Putman, Dwight F., &dquo;War and Religion: An Unholy Alliance,&dquo; LCQ, 9 (1936), 197-205. [1. War and Religion in the Tribe of Dan, pp. 197-200.]
*St.

Clair, Geo., &dquo;Israel in Camp: 185-217. [The Origin of

Zodiac.] ]

A Study,&dquo; JTS, 8 (1906-07), the Twelve Tribes and the

*van

Zyl,

A.

H., &dquo;The Relationship of the Israelite Tribes to the Indigenous Population of Canaan according to the Book

of

Judges,&dquo;

OTW, 2

(1959), 51-60.
Factors in the Northward Pro-

Waterman, Leroy, &dquo;Some Determining gress of Levi,&dquo; JAOS, 57

(1937), 375-380.

(366)

HEBREW GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX cont.

*Bravmann, M. M., &dquo;Notes

and

on

the Forms of the

Imperative in

Hebrew

Aramaic,&dquo;

JQR, N.s., 42
-

(1951-52), 51-56.
1

Brown, Charles R., &dquo;The Relatives -Ul and ~t~H,&dquo; Heb. ,

(1884-85),
(1885-

249-250.
Brown, Charles R., &dquo;A Note
on

the Relative

(it!1)),&dquo;

Heb., 2

86), 117-118.
Burney,
C.

F., &dquo;Note on the use of the Imperfect with Waw Consecutive in continuation of a Prophetic Perfect,&dquo; CQR, 74

(1912), 123-126.
Burney,
C.

F., &dquo;A
Hebrew

Fresh Examination of the Current Theory of the Tenses,&dquo; JTS, 20 (1918-19), 200-214.
1

Carslaw, W. H., &dquo;Pecularities of Gender,&dquo; I,

(1905), 254-257.

58

Carslaw, W. H., &dquo;Additional

1

Facts

Regarding

the Sun and

Moo,&dquo;

I,

(1905), 442-445.

[Gender]

Casanowicz, I. M., &dquo;The Emphatic Particle 7 in the Old Testament,&dquo; JAOS, 16 (1894-96), clxvi-clxxi.

Chomsky, William, &dquo;The

JAOS,

Plural of Nouns in the

n7t~ ( 7 ) Formations,&dquo;

54 (1934), 425-428.

Chomsky, William, &dquo;The History of Our Vowel-System in Hebrew,&dquo;

JQR, N.S., 32

(1941-42), 27-49.
of Hebrew Grammar

Chomsky, William, &dquo;How the Study

Began

and

Developed,&dquo;

JQR, N.S., 35

(1944-45), 281-301.

Chomsky, William, &dquo;Some Irregular Formations in Hebrew,&dquo; JQR, N.S.,

38 (1947-~+8 ) , 4og-418.
Chomsky, William, &dquo;Toward Broadening the Scope of Hebrew JQR, N.S., 49 (1958-59), 179-190.

Grammar,&dquo;

Chwolson, D., &dquo;The Quescents (or Vowel-Letters) .., J 11 in Ancient Hebrew Orthography,&dquo; Heb., 6 (1889-90), 89-lo8. (Trans. by T. K. Abbott)

(459)

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDIES OF PASSAGES IN GENESIS

(continued)
Chapter 12

Anonymous, &dquo;The Great Text Commentary.

ET, 10

The Great Texts of

Genesis,&dquo;
of

(1898-99),

317-320.

[Gen. 12:1-3.]

Rotenberry, Paul,

Genesis

&dquo;Blessing in the Old Testament. A Study 12:3,&dquo; RestQ, 2 (1958), 32-36.

Pierson,

Arthur

T., &dquo;Marginal Commentary: Notes on Genesis,&dquo; HR, 28 (1894), 247-251. [Gen. 12:10; 13:1, 4, 5-7, 10,

12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 14:4.]

Anonymous, &dquo;A
Case of

Eisegesis,&dquo;

CFL, 3rd Ser., 1

(1904), 442-443.

[Gen. 12:10ff.] ]

*Free, Joseph P., &dquo;Abrahams Camels,&dquo; JNES, 3

[Gen. 12:16.] ]

(1944), 187-193.

59

Chapter 14 Anonymous, &dquo;The Fourteenth Chapter of Genesis,&dquo; ,MR, 80 141. Anonymous, &dquo;Genesis XIV,&dquo; OTS, 12

(1898), 13~

(1891), 57-58.

Albright, W. F., &dquo;The Historical Background of Genesis XIV,&dquo; ,7SOR,

10

(1926), 231-269.
Israelite and Pre-Israelite Sites:
of

*Albright,

W.

F.,&dquo;New

The

Spring Trip
Fourteenth

1929,&dquo; BASOR, #35 (1929), 1-1~+. [The

of

Chapter

Genesis,

pp.

10-12.1

ABBREVIATIONS AND PERIODICAL LIST

AJT ATLA BASOR

American Journal of Theology (Chicago, 1897-1920) American Theological Library Association Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

(New Haven; Cambridge, Mass.; 1919ff . )

CFL

CBQ
EBB ET Heb.

Christian Faith and Life (Columbia, S.C.; New York; 1897-1939) [Title varies with series as: The Religious Outlook, Bible Student and Religious Outlook; Bible Student, Bible Student and Teacher; Bible Champion. Abbreviation annotated as O.S. = Original Series; N.S. New Series; 3rd Ser. = Third Series.] Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Washington, D.C.; 1939ff.)
Elenchus Bibliographicus Biblicus (Rome, 1920ff.) The Expository Times (Edinburgh, 1889ff.)

Hebraica

(Morgan Park, Ill.;

as

1895)
I
IEPLOT

[Continued

Languages
The

New Haven; Chicago; 1884The American Journal of Semitic and Literatures from volume 12 onward.] A Church

Interpreter.
on

Monthly Magazine (London,

1905-1924)
Hupper, William G.,
erature An Index to English Periodical Litthe Old Testament including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (with Special Section on the Dead Sea

Scrolls), in compilation.

60

IPLCG

Metzger,

IRPL

Bruce M., Index to Periodical Li terature on Christ and the Gospels, (Leiden, 1966). Index to Religious Periodical Literature (Chicago,

1949ff . )
IZBG
JAOS JBL und

Internationale Zeitschriftenschau fur Bibelwissenschaft

Grenzgebiete (Duessendorf, 1951ff . )

Journal of the American Oriental Society (Baltimore; New Haven; 1843ff.) Journal of Biblical Literature (New Haven; Boston; Phila-

delphia ; Missoula, Montana; E18801 1$$lff . )

JNES JPOS

JQR
JSOR
JSS JTS

Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago, 1924ff.) Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society (Jerusalem, 1920-1948) [Name changed to Israel Oriental Society with some obscurity as to last publication.] Jewish Quarterly Review (London, 1888-1908; New Series,

Philadelphia, 1910f f . )
Journal of the

Society of Oriental Research (Chicago,

1917-1932)
Journal of Semitic Studies (Manchester, Journal of Theological Studies (Oxford,

England, 1956ff.) 1899-1949; New

Series, LCQ
1,~R

1950ff . )
Quarterly (Gettsburg, Pa.; 1928-1949)

Lutheran Church

Methodist Review
never

(New York, 1818-1931)

[Volume 100

was

published.]

OCLC

Ohio College Library Center; a computerized, on-line file of bibliographic information which is located in

Columbus, Ohio.
OTS
The Hebrew Student

(Morgan Park, Ill.;

[Vol. 3-8
as

ford ; 1881-1892)
Student.]]
OTW

dent ; Volume 9 onwards

New Haven; HartThe Old Testament StuThe Old and New Testament
as

of die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (Stellenbosch, South Africa, 1958ff.) [Volume 1 incorporated into Volume 14 of Hervormde

Proceedings

Teologiese Studies.]
RestQ
SBAP ZA

Restoration

Society

of

Quarterly (Austin, Abeline, Texas; 1957ff.) Biblical Archaeology, Proceedings (London, Assyriologie
und Verwandte Gebiete

1878-1918)
Zeitschrift fur

(Leipzig, Strassburg, Berlin, 1886ff.)

ZAV1 ~~~~~

Ze itschrift far die Alttestamentliche Vlissenschaft

(Giessen, Germany; Berlin; l88lff.)

61

A CORNUCOPIA OF TARGUM AND PSEUDEPIGRAP11A STUDIES

FROM SCHOLARS PRESS

Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Or:qelo,s on Genesis 49: Translation and Analytic ComJnentary. SBL Aramaic Studies 1; Scholars Press: Missoula, 1976; pp. xiv + 4.50.

84- ~

Lund and Julia Foster, Variant Versions of Targumic Traditlons within Codex Neofiti 1. SBL Aramaic Studies 2; Scholars Press: Missoula, 1977; pp. xii + 4.50.

Shirley

lj~. ~

H. Dixon Slingerland, The Testaments of the Tcaelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research. SBL Monograph Series 21; Scholars Press: Missoula, 197t; pp. ix + 122. ~ 4.50. James H. Charlesworth assisted by P. Dykers, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Researcl. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies j; Scholars Press: Missoula, 1976; pp. xiv + 4-50

245- T

W.E. Abraham. SBL

George

Nickelsburg(ed.),
Septuagint
pp.
x

Studies

and

Missoula, 1976;

340.

Cognate 1 4.50.

on the Testament of Studies 6; Scholars Press:

At a time when most monograph series must restrict arid delay their output, the Society of Biblical Literature-Scholars Press connection has given us five significant contributions to two related and fast-growing subjects within about a year. Four of the five volumes are reproduced in typescript (Slingerlands is are perfectly readable, and severally present clear Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Coptic citations in their proper alphabets and in a quantity which would have made conventionally typeset volumes prohibitively expensive. Students of the Targums and of the Pseudepigrapha, and those interested in keeping in touch with developments ln these areas, have been extremely well served.

composited),

Aberbach and Grossfeld ambitiously set out to provide &dquo;a model for similar efforts&dquo; to explain the exegesis of the Targumim (xiv), and their monograph sets a high standard for their successors.

62

Previous discussion of Targumic material (as exemplified by the McNamara and Vermes) has work of Grelot, Le short be atomistic: to tended passages are isolated and compared Because any such to other material, often in the New Testament. method is inherently selective (and because passages dissimilar to classical Rabbinic literature were frequently chosen for analysis), the impression sometimes has been given that the extant Targums antedate the New Testament. This has met with strong objections (notably from Joseph Fitzmyer), but the challenge remained to set a coherent specimen of Targumic exegesis in the context of Rabbinic thought and thereby to explicate the relation between the two. This challenge has been more than adequately met by Aberbach and Grossfeld in respect to Genesis 49 in Targum Onqelos (TO).

D~ez~Iacho,

Deaut,

Their method (xiv) is &dquo;to analyze every deviation from the Masoretic text with reference to provenance, historical background, relevant rabbinic, Patristic and Septuagintal material, as well as evaluating the contributions made by modern commentators&dquo;, especially those to which students without a fluent The result is predictably command of Hebrew do not have access. compendious, but they repeatedly show that this Targwn, the most literalistic of them all, can be properly understood only in the sphere of Talmud and Midrash. They carefully cite passages in Hebrew or Aramaic (translated, but for the odd lapse, to demonstrate that the language and into English as well) themes of this Targum are thoroughly Rabbinic. For example, 49:10 &dquo;until the Messiah comes&dquo; for MT &dquo;until Shiloh comes&dquo; is associated with expressions in Bellum Judaicum, PseudoJonathan, Neophyti, Midrash Rabbah, Taaihurna and Tosephta to Talmud Babli (14,15). By means of their method, the authors are able to interpret otherwise obscure statements: we learn that the odd reference to Judahs confession in TO 49:8 refers in Rabbinic literature to his part in the Tamar affair. Instances could be multiplied, because they have put together a consistently illuminating analytic commentary. It is necessarily technical, but care is taken to present the arguments in a way which a patient English-speaking reader could understand and appreciate.

63

said that, it remains that the authors have offered their book as a model, which encourages more critical appraisal In the event, the study has than might usually be appropriate. several features which future investigators would be welladvised not to imitate. It seems a shame, when there is already so much Hebrew script in the book anyway, not to reproduce the TO Aramaic text; as it is, one needs to read with Sperber in hand. So far as the translation itself goes, it does indeed offer some much-needed improvements on the old J.W. Etheridge edition (reproduced 1968 by Ktav and which, along with Rieders recent edition of Pseudo-Jonathan, fails to make the bibliography), notably at 49:8,9,1~,24,2-f. Generally, however, closer reference to Etheridge might have resulted in a smoother product. More particularly, the use of viz. and lit. in parentheses is neither consistent nor, on the whole, very informative. V. 23 would better bring out the sense posited in the commentary if Etheridge were followed. The insertion of the term &dquo;testament&dquo; in v. 33, even with the parenthetical qualifier, is tendentious.

Having

The great strength of this book is that it brings together the materials which would be useful in constructing ahistory of the Its weakness is that it is not as critical traditions concerned. The authors citation of Church Fathers as it is encyclopedic. is at times unrelated to the discussion, and it is inconsistent of them to cite patristic witnesses in English only (25, 51-2, but cf.66, where the reference, cited in Latin, is quite fitting). More serious is the failure of the authors to set out clearly how they see TO in relation to the other material which they cite, particularly other Targumim. For this reason, the assertion school&dquo; that TO &dquo;largely represents the ideology of R. Aqibas a from the bolt comes somewhat as cf. intriguing blue, 36) (31, though it certainly is. The argument that TO Gen. 49:17 reflects an Amoraic understanding of how leaders are to be clioseti 38, cf. 6() is more carefully - and convincingly - put, while the almost bland observation that Targum Jonathan to Judges 15:8 has influenced both TO and Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 49: 1( (41) is as unexplained as it is provocative. The major problem is that the reader must search for hints as to what the authors think about the provenience of the document they are exegeting. Engaged in such an exercise, one might take such statements as &dquo;TO, followed by Ps. Jon. and N&dquo; (60) at their word,

(3t,

64

Lack when presumably they are just instances of loose wording. of precision, or of explanation, also attends the usage of &dquo;version&dquo;. At times this is apparently meant to refer to a stage in composition (19, 23, 54~, but it can also be used to cite variant readings (10, 43, 51). Do the authors conceive of ma.nuscripts as coherent recensions? If so, one would want the evidence adduced, and the thesis spelled out.
In these criticisms, I am as much whetting my own appetite for the authors fuller treatment of TO (promised on xiii) as I am suggesting adjustments in their methodological model. Still, the present work is so close to being a pivotal contribution As it is, that one wishes its critical focus had been sharper. we are left with a well-presented monograph which sets TO to Gen.49 in the context in which it demonstrably belongs, but which fails adequately to differentiate TO from its predecessors and
successors.

Shirley Lund and Julia Foster have undertaken a more limited investigation, based upon their dissertations for St. Andrews (1967) and Boston (1969) Universities respectively. The bulk of the monograph is devoted to positing that there are two &dquo;Types&dquo; (T and II) of marginal variant readings in the Codex Neophyti which Alexandros Dfez Macho found in the Vatican Library in 1956. &dquo;Type I Mgg&dquo; are held to be related &dquo;linguistically as well as textually&dquo; to Targum Jerushalmi (TJ) II, more particularly, to the Fragment Targum and Cairo Geniza Mss. E and F (66). &dquo;Type II Mgg&dquo; are held to have a less definite purely linguistic relation to Pseudo-Jonathan (68). The case
is built up

heuristically,

with
in

full presentation of the

evidence upon which the authors generalize

(discussion

in

appendices). Type I Mgg are identified with reference to three groups. The first of these is a selection of mgg for which complete TJ II parallels are extant and which suggest the relationship posited. The second &dquo;illustrates the possibility of comparison where only a portion of a verse is paralleled by another TJ II text&dquo; (15). The last mgg group within Type I has no TJ II parallels, but presents variants comparable to those found in the first two groups. Type II Mgg are found first of all in sets of multiple variants in which Type I Mgg occur. By comparison to Type I, Type II
chapter two, transcriptions

65

Mgg

are isolated which approximate &dquo;the text of TJ I&dquo; (18). To these mgg, others &dquo;were added ... on the basis of their use of language elements unknown or extremely infrequent in TJ II witnesses, but typical of TJ I and 0&dquo; (for Onqelos). On the basis of these procedures (and the study of translation equivalents in the case of Type I PQgg~, &dquo;linguistic profiles&dquo; of the two marginal types are presented in chapter III, and the clearest statement as to their relation to other Targumim is made. It is also admitted that such a general appraisal of the linguistic character of the margins should be followed &dquo;by detailed study of each passage&dquo; Chapter III is the climax of the thesis in so far as it is here that the mgg are described in terms of the two Types. Chapters IV and V take up issues which are clarified by the understanding forwarded. Chapter IV is perhaps the most important section of the monograph in the sense that it directly impinges on our understanding of the extant ms. of Neophyti. It is argued - with great precision - that the sigla 9&dquo;) and 8&dquo;O denote Ms. changes in Gen. 1.1-3.4, and this argument is backed up with a discussion of the sections for which the existence of distinct sources is posited. This argument is then applied to explain similar oddities in the The conclusion is text and mgg of Deut. 20:1((18)-34:12. &dquo;that at the beginning and end of the N I Ms there are at least four, possibly five, distinct texts, each different from the principal text&dquo; (80), and this is the rationale for not including these mgg in the study. The final chapter presents texts and translations of passages of N and their mgg ulider five categories: those in which Type I and II Mgg contrast, those in which there is &dquo;no significant contrast&dquo; between them (81), those in which dual Mgg are not classified, variants marked ~&dquo;~ , W1C lass i fied three set variants.

(68).

It is the stated aim of the authors to present &dquo;useful working and &dquo;an illustrative sampling of for those with a more general interest in the traditions represented by these texts&dquo;,(13). In all honesty I do not think that the generalist would be much taken by this book. As the previous paragraph may show, the structure of the study is determined by the logic of investigation, not by that of presentation, and as a result The abbreviations are it is not easy to follow the argument. quite complicated, and sometimes there are more than one for a

papers&dquo; for &dquo;specialists&dquo; diverse Targumic versions

66

introductory first chapter begins at a very elementary level, but then plunges into the historically complicated problem of nomenclature, a problem with which the monograph is not concerned. As a whole, the introduction is a tidy review for those already somewhat familiar with the field. For those who are particularly interested in Codex Neophyti, I think enough has been said to indicate the importance of this monograph. Even here, however, a word of caution may be appropriate. The authors seek by means of their study to improve our grasp &dquo;of the textual history of the Targums and of Palestinian Aramaic&dquo; (13), but they do not deal systematically with the problem of distinguishing between exegetical and linguistic variants. In the end, is a marginal &dquo;Type&dquo; a text

single document.

The

Such a distinction is crucial, because we would or a dialect? misconstrue both the Targumim and Aramaic if we confused the traditions of schools with the languages of communities. It seems to me that the authors tread near to that confusion when type underlying the they speak of &dquo;a single majority of Mgg&dquo; (64). To take examples from their first two would citations in Appendix I, -f seem to be a linguistic trait, while It is true enough that is prima facie an exegetical rendering. these data support the authors general conclusions if one accepts their terms of reference, but the point is that language can be shared by unrelated texts and that a text can be For this attested by mss. in various dialects and languages. reason, linguistic and textual observations should not in the first instance be mixed to define a single &dquo;Type&dquo;. Language and text ought to be studied separately, although the distinction Of course, one may between the two is not always easy to make. find that textual similarity attends linguistic similarity, but that is a finding which is meaningful only when each set of phenomena has been studied on its own. Perhaps the authors had the development of such a distinction in mind when they spoke of the &dquo;detailed study&dquo; (68) to which they left the reader. Be that as it may, the question of the relationship between text and language is basic enough for the reader to have expected a reasonably full discussion in this context.

text/language

I J i1( rather than r B J 18.)

*1).-)* ]a(for()~J~-)

Slingerlands review of critical discussion

on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs will of course be priority reading for students in this field; it can also be commended to all

67

practitioners of literary criticism.

With great economy, he of the discussion from 1241 and shows that by 1781 &dquo;the theses which would vie for acceptance in the From that point, modern discussion had all been set out&dquo; (7). Slingerland traces the arc of the pendulum-like consensus which swung between favouring now the Jewish and now the Christian provenience of the Testaments. In this, he has performed the sort of service for Testament:: criticism which W.R. Farmer performed for Synoptic criticism. In both cases, British scholars (Streeter and Charles) gave their weight to German positions and in so doing established a consensus which lasted for more than a generation, and in each case an American scholar has questioned the critical propriety of that consensus. Slingerland, however, does not forward our knowledge of the Testaments themselves because he is purely concerned with the history of discussion. While his style is generally straightforward, he tends to be too journalistic. For example, he speaks of a &dquo;definite logjam&dquo; of &dquo;generally irreconciliable theories&dquo; in 1962 (64, 65), but in fact the differences between these and other positions are, as he later points out, a matter of distinct perceptions of the same &dquo;primary data&dquo; (~3~. But such failings do not detract from the forceful way in which the book shows that literary criticism has been pressed beyond the limits of its competence by the desire to settle the &dquo;origins

presents

resume

question&dquo;
more

(106).

In his final sections, Slingerland outlines what he calls &dquo;a inclusive approach&dquo; to the provenience question, in which he argues that we should read the Testaments in such a way that &dquo;this source may reveal the contours of life in both At first sight, this Jewish and Christian commuliities&dquo; but in practice he a fair seem (if may compromise, is swept along by de Jonges recent challenge to Charles view He posits that that the Testaments are Jewish irl origin. while&dquo;we a &dquo;Jewish Testaments&dquo; must be &dquo;reconstructed&dquo; need to read backward in the Testaments with the awareness that the narratives and ethical paraenesis have as their present conclusion messianic prophecy, the focus of which is the It seems to me that this is a facile Christiaii Lord&dquo; no because attempt is made to show whether the conclusion, Christian material is integral to the Tectaments or is purely iiite1-polaLive. In this connection, it is a taillilg of the

(10~(~.

obvious)

(108),

(112).

68

book that it does not deal with the possibility of a redactioncritical approach to the Testaments. Lastly, a good deal of attention has been paid in recent years to such categories
as

&dquo;Jewish&dquo;, &dquo;Hellenistic&dquo; r ~ias p ora&dquo;> &dquo;Palestinia.n&dquo;> &dquo;Christian&dquo;,

and their permutations, but this is not represented in SlingerIn short, this volume stops well short of lands discussion. it is valuable only for its slgnificance; exegetical having review of previous research.
I hope it will not be taken as a sympton of acute bibliophilia when I say that Charlesworths bibliography makes very interesting reading. The bulk of it is made up of introductions to and listings for the seventy-seven (!) pseudepigraphal These introductions are intended for &dquo;the entries provided. and are quite informative, English-speaking beginning although they are only of use for preliminary guidance. The period covered is from 1960 until 1975, excluding 1960-65 work cited in Dellings 1969 bibliography; obviously, students of the Pseudepigrapha will need to consult Dellings 1975 und intertestamentariBibliographie zur schen Literatur 1900-1970 in addition. The &dquo;Introduction&dquo; is also instructive, but not exhaustive, and is principally discusses &dquo;A Definition of interesting because Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha&dquo;, which will no doubt influence his edition of Before pseudepigraphal works the Doubleday Pseudepigrapha. are listed, the subject breakdown of the bibliography is not always useful: under &dquo;general&dquo;, we find a pot-pourri of introductions, translations, concordances, editions and progress reports. What is very useful is that works in the press or in preparation are mentioned. (Since Charlesworth asks to be informed of omissions, it may be in order to indicate C.C. Rowlands 1974 Cambridge thesis on the Merkabah, and M. Wadsworths 1975 Oxford thesis on LAB.) On the whole, then, we have here a generally handy and surprisingly readable tool for study.

student&dquo;(3)

judiscii-liellenistischen

The&dquo;nucleus&dquo;, to use Nickelsburgt own word (ix), of the last book to be reviewed here consists of papers read at a 1972 SBL symposium on the Testament of Abraham (TA) and published as SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 2. To these, additional contributions have been added. The book covers part of the

69

in which the student of TA necessarily finds himself involved. Nickelsburg himself provides useful introductory matter in the form of an overview of the volume, an annotated bibliography, and reviews of recent books by Schmidt, Delcor and Janssen. Nickelsburgs 1972 contribution deals with the judgments scenes in the two recensions (A and of TA; he thinks that the longer recension (A) has priority over which corrupts and deletes material the shorter The priority of B is defended by Schmidt, who concludes that &dquo;the long recension is the reworking, done in the Jewish diaspora of Egypt, of an older document coming from a Palestinian Jewish circle that is open to Iranian influences&dquo; Nickelsburg allows himself to reply to Schmidt (albeit with great restraint) 1n a brief addendum to his original article, and he publishes a new contribution to the recensions question, this time focussing on the structure of TA. When one bears in mind that Nickelsbug also reviewed Schmidts 1971 thesis at the beginning of the book, the impression is hard to shake off that Schmidt is hard done by. R.A. Martin avoids partisanship in his statistical analysis of TA according to &dquo;the 17 syntactical criteria of translation Greek&dquo; which he developed in SBL and Studies He concludes that B is 3. Septuagint Cognate &dquo;more Semitic&dquo; than A and that &dquo;both recensions are probably ultimately related to an earlier translation&dquo; although he points out that this conclusion does not establish the dependance of A on B, especially since there are points at This note of caution is which A is more Semitic than B but a prelude to the theme of scholarly sobriety so masterfully He faults previous discussion of the scored by R.A. Kraft. recensions question for not taking account of the many possible ways in which the recensions might have been related to the &dquo;original&dquo;, and for not dealing with the question of the nature of the original (12(-129). He then criticizes the methods of Nickelsburg, Schmidt and Martin. He points out that &dquo;coherence&dquo; is a criterion of analysis which assumes that the original was that better organized than its followers (pace it is simplistic to suppose that Jewish tradition observed geographical boundaries (pace Schmidt, 130), and that &dquo;Semitic&dquo; syntactical features may have been absorbed into Christian It is perhaps easier to Greek generally (pace Martin,135)demolish a recensional theory than it is to explain the relations between recensions, but Kraft has introduced a necessary correc-

startling subject-range

B)

(B),

(55).

(80).

(96)

---

(96),

(101).

Nickelshirg),

70

tive into the discussion. It comes as a relief after the rather inconclusive discussion of the recensions question when Anitra Kolenkow presents a brief but carefully developed argument for the genesis of TA in terms which even beginning students ought to be able to A second, shorter and less important understand and appreciate. contribution from Kolenkow completes Part One of the collection. Part Two treats traditions parallel to TA, both Jewish and Christian. D.J. Harrington deals with parallels in Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, Pseudo-Philo, Philo and Josephus, and R.B. Viard surveys references to Abraham in the New Testament, S.E. Loewenstein analyzes I Clement, Ignatius and Barnabas. Jewish traditions on the death of Moses, which he holds were secondarily applied to Abraham. B.A. Pearson presents a new transcription and translation from the Coptic of the Pierpont Morgan Enoch Apocryphon which he introduces and comments upon; G. MacRae discusses the judgment scene in the Coptic Apocalypse In appendices, D.S. Cooper and II.B. Weber translate of Paul. the Slavonic TA, and MacRae retranslates the Bohairic TA. Nickelsburg closes the book with a summary, but the contributions in this volume are too disparate to make a synthesis possible. In fact this book may be said to be a microcosm of all the five; it is a cornucopia, and the reader is left to select his favourite fruit.

Bruce Chilton Department of Biblical Studies Sheffield University S10 2TN