Phillips, Kim

Apollo (Cambridge)

Fragment of the Month: August 2016Who Wrote the Bible?by Kim Phillips (Genizah Research Unit; Tyndale House, Cambridge) According to Jewish tradition, who wrote the Bible? The well-known baraita inb.Baba Bathra (b.BB) 14b–15a has the following to say regarding the authorshipof the biblical books: Moses wrote his book, the Bilʿam narratives, and the book of Job. Joshuawrote his book, and eight verses in the Torah. Samuel wrote his own book,as well as Judges and Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms, by means often elders… Jeremiah wrote his book, the book of Kings, and Lamentations.Hezekiah and his associates wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs andEcclesiastes. The men of the Great Assembly wrote Ezekiel, the twelveMinor Prophets, Daniel, and the scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote his book and thegenealogy of Chronicles…    The passage above is regularly cited in—and commands the monopoly of—discussions of traditional Jewish views concerning the authorship of the variousbiblical books.  Jacobs, for example, claims that “the passage is unique in that itis the only full-scale treatment of the question [of the authorship of the biblicalbooks] in the whole of the Rabbinic literature.”    So great is the shadow cast by this passage from the Babylonian Talmud thatit appears to have all but eclipsed a closely related, yet distinct, discussion of theauthorship of the biblical books. This alternative discussion (in variousrecensions) has survived in several masoretic treatises, and in the masoreticmaterial of various Hebrew Bible manuscripts. It has been published in at leasttwo separate locations in the past century and a half: Ginsburg’s Masora,  andBaer and Strack’s edition of Diqduqe ha-Teʿamim, where it is erroneouslyattributed to that work.1234     This marginalised, alternative discussion of the authorship of the biblicalbooks also survives in a fragment from the Genizah: T-S D1.37:Moses wrote the five books of Torah and the book of Job. Joshua wrote hisbook, and eight verses, from: “So Moses, the servant of the LORD, diedthere” to the end of the Torah. Samuel wrote his book, the book of Judges,and Ruth. Isaiah wrote his book, the book of Proverbs, Song of Songs andEcclesiastes. Jeremiah wrote his book and the book of Kings, as well as thescroll of Lamentations. David and ten elders wrote the book of Psalms.The men of the Great Assembly [wrote] the book of Ezekiel, the twelveMinor Prophets, the book of Daniel and the scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote hisbook, and the genealogical record in Chronicles, as far as: “Now Jehoramhad brothers—the sons of Jehoshaphat.”This masoretic note shares numerous, obvious parallels with the baraita in b.BB14b–15a. Nonetheless, it varies from the talmudic passage in several interestingways. First, and most obvious, is the disappearance of Hezekiah and hisassociates; Isaiah is now granted the merit of writing his own book, as well asediting Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Second, and of no lessinterest, is the order in which the various authors are introduced.    In the talmudic passage, Hezekiah and his associates are credited with writing(presumably the task we would refer to as editing) the books of Isaiah, Proverbs,Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Regarding the attribution of the latter threeworks to Hezekiah and his associates, it seems that the rabbis are relying on anextension of the sense of Proverbs 25:1: י ִחְזִקּיָ֬ה יקּו ַאנְֵׁש֤ ר ֶהְ֝עִּת֗ ה ֲאֶׁש֥ ֹ֑ י ְׁשֹלמ ַּגם־ֵאֶּ֭לה ִמְׁשֵלֶ֣לְך־יְהּוָדֽה׃ These, too, are Solomon’s proverbs, which Hezekiah king of Judah’s“ ֶמֽmen copied.”     In the masoretic version, Hezekiah and his associates have disappeared.These four books are all attributed to Isaiah’s authorial-editorial labours. It isquite understandable that Isaiah should be credited with having written his ownbook, but what qualifications can he claim for editing the other three books? It isjust possible that these have been appended to Isaiah’s CV on the basis of thevarious Love Poetry and Wisdom themes found in his prophecy (e.g. Isa 5:1–7;28:23–29). More likely is the hypothesis that the talmudic wording of thetradition lies somewhere in the pre-history of this masoretic tradition. At somepoint, Hezekiah and his associates were omitted from the wording (accidentallyor otherwise), leaving Isaiah with the burden of editing Solomon’s works, as wellas writing his own book. Under the pressure of the fact that Joshua, Samuel,Jeremiah and Ezra are claimed to have written the books that bear their names,it is easy to understand how such a mutation would credit Isaiah with writing hisown book. That is to say: it makes sense to see the talmudic tradition as prior tothe masoretic tradition in this case. It is harder to imagine the mutationoccurring in the opposite direction. 5    It has recently been argued that when the author(s) of b.BB 14b–15a usedthe verb כתב, they were not referring to the composer of the texts in question,but simply those responsible for writing the composition down. This wouldexplain, for example, why no mention is made of Solomon as the author ofProverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. If the talmudic tradition does indeedlie behind this masoretic tradition found in T-S D1.37, as suggested above, thenthe latter may offer an interesting early commentary on the former. For, behindthe removal of Hezekiah and his associates (whether accidental or intentional),and the insertion of the claim that, in fact, Isaiah wrote his own book, may liethe beginnings of the understanding of כתב as concerning authorship, rather thansimple scribal activity.The second clear difference between the note in T-S D1.37 and its talmudicparallel is the order in which the various authors of the biblical books areintroduced: b. BB 14b–15a                                    T-S D1.37Moses                                                  MosesJoshua                                                 JoshuaSamuel                                                SamuelDavid                                                   IsaiahJeremiah                                              JeremiahHezekiah and his associates                   DavidThe men of the Great Assembly              The men of the Great AssemblyEzra                                                     Ezra As the list above demonstrates, b. BB 14b–15a follows the biblical chronology inintroducing the writers of the various biblical books—with the striking exceptionthat Hezekiah and his associates are mentioned after Jeremiah. That the order ofthe list is dictated by the biblical chronology, rather than (primarily) thecanonical order of the books, can be seen by the position of David in the list. Thecurious post-positioning of Hezekiah and his associates was apparentlyprecipitated by an earlier part of the baraita in b.BB 14b, which stipulates thatthe order of the latter prophets must be: “Jeremiah and Ezekiel; Isaiah and theTwelve.”6 7 8     Interestingly, the masoretic version of the tradition places Isaiah in hisexpected chronological position—before Jeremiah. This apparently trivial, obviousreordering raises some intriguing questions. If the talmudic order (Jeremiah,Hezekiah and his associates) is indeed due to the influence of the earlier part ofthe baraita now found in b.BB 14b, does the reordering found in the masoreticversion (Isaiah, Jeremiah) imply that the masoretic version was free from theinfluence of the earlier part of the baraita (perhaps due to an extended period oftransmission independent of the talmudic context)? Was the reordering in themasoretic version influenced by the Tiberian order of the latter prophets,  or bypurely chronological considerations, or both, or neither?    There is some evidence that the masoretic version of the tradition did indeedenjoy a period of transmission isolated from the talmudic context. This masoreticversion of the discussion of biblical authorship is found in at least threemasoretic notes recorded by Ginsburg: Samekh, §§ 175, 177, 180.  In all threecases Isaiah is said to have written his own book, as well as Proverbs, Song ofSongs and Ecclesiastes, and in all three cases Isaiah’s authorial-editorial laboursare mentioned before those of Jeremiah. The wording of the tradition in § 175 isvirtually identical to that found in T-S D1.37. §§ 177 and 180 contain manifestlythe same tradition, though with various minor alterations in wording andarrangement. Now, in the Genizah fragment T-S D1.37 this discussion of biblicalauthorship is preceded by an extended discussion of the number of yearscovered by each of the biblical books from Genesis to Kings. Significantly, in twoof Ginsburg’s parallel texts (§§ 175 and 177) this same collocation of notes isfound: the discussion of biblical authorship is preceded by a discussion of thenumber of years covered by each biblical book.  Likewise, in Baer and Strack’sedition of Diqduqe ha-Teʿamim, the discussion of biblical authorship (which,again, corresponds to that found in T-S D1.37) is collocated with a discussion ofthe number of years covered by each of the biblical books, though in this casethe chronological discussion follows the discussion of authorship. These textualwitnesses support the contention that (at least one strand of) the masoreticversion of the tradition of biblical authorship did indeed enjoy a period oftransmission isolated from the talmudic context, bound, as it evidently was, intoa new masoretic context.    So, who wrote the Bible, according to Jewish tradition? It seems to depend onwhom you ask. T-S D1.37 has helped to uncover this nearly-eclipsed alternativeanswer to that found in b.BB 14b–15a. This masoretic tradition appears to haveits roots in the talmudic parallel, yet to have developed into a separate traditionin its own right. It is interesting to note that this sub-tradition (if that is what itturns out to be) seems to have survived only in masoretic material. Perhapsthere is a causal relationship between the fact that this alternative tradition is solittle-known, and the fact that it was preserved in masoretic circles. As Qimhi9 10 11 12 already complains, at the beginning of the 13th century: “Many do notunderstand… due to their lack of concerted effort in engaging with… the mastersof Masora and tradition.” T-S D1.37 recto 13 T-S D1.37 verso Notes:1 See, for example (spanning a diverse set of genres): Louis Jacobs, The Book ofJewish Belief (Springfield, NJ: Behrman House, Inc., 1984), 52; Karel van derToorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press, 2007), 44–45.2 Louis Jacobs, Structure and Form in the Babylonian Talmud (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1991), 32.3 Christian D. Ginsburg, The Massorah: Compiled from Manuscripts:Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged (4 vols.: London, 1880–1905), II, 338–340.4 Seligmann Baer and Hermann L. Strack, Die Dikduke ha-Te‘amim des Ahronben Moscheh ben Ascher (Leipzig: Fernau, 1879), 57.5 T-S D1.37 is a single paper leaf containing 23–24 lines of masoretic notes in acasual square script on both sides of the leaf.6 Jacobs, Structure, 40; Toorn, Scribal Culture, 45.7 Only the beginnings, inasmuch as Isaiah’s role still includes the editing ofSolomon’s three compositions.8 For a discussion of this apparently curious order, see Jacobs, Structure, 34–35.He concludes: “The only satisfactory way of accounting for Hezekiah comingafter Jeremiah in the authorship section is that it is a parallel to the ‘order’section where Isaiah, one of the books written by Hezekiah and his associates,comes after Jeremiah and Ezekiel”, 35.9 There were two main centres for the preservation and development of theproto-masoretic biblical text from antiquity to the Middle Ages—Babylonia andTiberias. The order of some of the biblical books differed between the twotraditions.10 Ginsburg, The Massorah, II, 338–340.11 In the third case (§ 180), the tradition concerning biblical authorship ispresented in isolation, with no other notes preceding or following. 12  Having thus attempted to demonstrate the divergence of these twotraditions, talmudic and masoretic, we also note a striking example of their laterconfluence. In Shabbetai Bass’ influential Sifte Yeshenim (1680) he givesauthorial details concerning the biblical books. He was evidently aware of boththe talmudic and masoretic traditions discussed above, and attempts toharmonise them. He introduces the section on the authorship of the books of theLatter Prophets with the words: נביאים אחרונים כתבו חזקיה וסייעתו ובני דורו “The LatterProphets, which Hezekiah and his associates and the men of his generationedited.” Nonetheless, he then immediately claims, in now familiar terms: ישעיהוIsaiah wrote his own book, and the book of“ כתב ספרו וספר משלי ושיר השירים וקהלתProverbs, as well as Song of Songs and Qohelet.” Shabbetai Bass, SifteYeshenim, (Amsterdam: David Tartas, 1680), פג.13 David Qimhi, Et Sofer (Lyck: Rudolph Siebert, 1864), 1.  If you enjoyed this Fragment of the Month, you can find others here.Contact us: genizah@lib.cam.ac.uk The zoomable images are produced using Cloud Zoom, a jQueryimage zoomplugin:Cloud Zoom, Copyright (c) 2010, R Cecco, www.professorcloud.comLicensed under the MIT License

Who Wrote the Bible?

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/262164/Fragment%20of%20the%20Month-%20August%202016%20-%20Cambridge%20University%20Library.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Who Wrote the Bible?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Apollo (Cambridge)