The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship

By the Letter? /Word for Word? Scripture in the Jewish Tradition

Chapter 7 By the Letter?/Word for Word? Scripture in the Jewish Tradition Leonard Greenspoon Introduction For those interested in reading or consulting the Hebrew Bible, the modern world offers unprecedented opportunities. Modern-language versions are readily available in print or on line, along with editions in the original languages and an array of commentaries on all matters theological and philological.1 At the same time, and paradoxically, this ease of access serves to make abundantly clear that choices have to be made—and probably have been for centuries, if not millennia. How is it possible for so many translations, ranging from interlinear to paraphrase, to exist—all claiming to be a (if not the) true representation of the Word of God? With many of the Dead Sea Scrolls presenting ancient evidence of a Hebrew text at variance with the Masoretic Text (the traditional consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible; in its fullest form, it also includes vowel points, accents, and other notations ), is it possible to know the original wording of any biblical passage? And with heightened awareness that certain books appear to have been accepted as authoritative by some Jews but not by others, how can we be certain that the contents (to say nothing of the ordering) of today’s Hebrew Bible accurately mirror the circumstances in earlier Jewish communities ? These are among the questions we raise and attempt to answer in this chapter. As is often the case with our most important concerns, we ought to start by defining—or better, describing or delineating—key terms. 141 Canon Defined and Described We begin, in reverse order, with the word “canon.” In a succinct manner, Eugene Ulrich defines “canon” as “the definitive list of inspired, authoritative books which constitute the recognized and accepted body of sacred scripture of a major religious group, that definite list being the result of inclusive and exclusive decisions after serious deliberation.”2 Ulrich clearly understands that each element or phrase of this definition is essential. In so doing, he tacitly or explicitly rejects a number of possibilities. What is canonized is a “body of sacred scripture,” that is, a collection of books, but not necessarily a specific text for each of the books in this collection .3 So, for example, it would be possible to speak of the Book of Jeremiah as “canonical,” in the Jewish canon and in the canon of Orthodox Christianity, even though the latter is one-seventh shorter than the former and the two “Jeremiahs” exhibit many other differences in ordering of chapters and verses.4 Second, this is a “definitive” or “definite” list—in other words, a closed canon. Although Ulrich, in line with almost all other scholars, envisions a period, perhaps a protracted one, of “serious deliberation,” this process is completed, at least for a particular “religious group,” by canonization. To be sure, the canon remains open for this group in its interpretive richness; for another group, this canon may serve as a building block for the construction of its own canon. But for the religious group under consideration , the fixing of the “canon” brings to an end the possibility of adding or deleting any books (even when the text of the “canonical” books is still fluid).5 That this literature is “inspired,” “authoritative,” “recognized,” and “accepted ” is crucial. We don’t have to get bogged down over definitions of inspiration, nor is it essential that these books be the only (or even the major) authority within a community.6 Nonetheless, some level of inspiration and authority must be recognized (which I would understand as requiring a formal sort of acknowledgment) and accepted (which I see as referring to the practical consequences of acknowledgment). Ulrich then speaks of “a major religious group.” I hesitate to limit canon in this way to “major” groups, since this is surely a subjective, evaluative term that seems extraneous to what “canon” is all about. Thus, we may debate (as many have debated) whether there was a biblical canon at Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found). I think such debate is 142 l e o n a r d g r e e n s p o o n fruitful whether or not Qumran would have been viewed as “major” in its own era. Although Ulrich says nothing about how this recognition takes place and how acceptance...