Raymond F. Person. The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions. Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, no. 252.
Berlin/NewYork: de Gruyter, 1997. ISBN: 3-11-015457-9. Pp. viii + 127. DM
98.00; sFr 89.00; US $65.35.
1. In the two self-contained parts of his study, Person offers a new effort
at reconstructing the Urtext of the two major synoptic texts from the book
of Kings, with the aim of providing a critique of current redaction-critical
study of the Deuteronomistic History (DH). To this end, he compares the
significant textual recensions involved, which in the case of 2 Kgs
18:13-20:19 are the Hebrew and Greek texts of Kings, the Hebrew and Greek
texts of the Isaiah parallel, and the corresponding portions of the Isaiah
scroll from Qumran. In the case of 2 Kgs 24:18-25:30, besides the Kings
texts he covers the Hebrew and Greek editions of Jer 52. In both parts of
his book Person follows the same procedure. First, the witnesses are
displayed in parallel columns, with the Greek translations retroverted into
Hebrew, followed by notes on the retroversions. Second, the textual and
literary relationships among the witnesses are determined. Third, an
annotated reconstruction of the putative Urtext of all the recensions extant
is undertaken. In the fourth step, Person states his view of the
text-critical implications for the redactional history of the text under
discussion. The results of both parts resemble each other closely and are
summarized in the final conclusions of the book. Person believes that in
either text studied, inter-versional comparison can pinpoint additions in
Kings that are both late and Deuteronomistic in character. From this it
follows that "there were at least two redactional stages behind MT-Kings,
one that produced the Urtexts and one that produced MT-Kings" (p. 114). For
Person, this observation delivers a deadly blow to all recent theories on
the development of the DH, since "they all fail methodologically because
they ignore text critical evidence and are unable to distinguish between
redactional layers that are evident from the text critical controls" (p.
115).
2. When perusing Person's book, the reader is immediately struck by the
astounding number of misprints in Hebrew and Greek texts. What is more, many
will find his retroversion hampered by serious blunders and will often doubt
his logic. In his reconstruction of the Vorlage of Greek Isa 37:9, the word
yc) (representing e)ch=lqen) is missing (p. 21). In 2
Kgs 18:14, pro\s basile/a A)ssuri/on (misspelt for
A)ssuri/wn), "to the king of Assur," is rendered by )l
mmlkwt )#wr, "to the kingdoms of Assur" (p. 38), which according to
Person indicates that the Septuagint Vorlage deviated from the Masoretic
reading )l mlk )#wr. In Isa 36:22, he retroverts o(
grammateu\s th=s duna/mews as hspr hcb) (p. 40). Similarly,
Greek Isa 38:8 tou= oi)kou= (misspelt for oi)/kou)
tou= patro/s sou is said to represent hbyt )byk. When
writing a monograph on OT text criticism, at least the rules governing the
Hebrew construct state should be familiar. Instead of b(br on p.
83 we read b(kr in the Hebrew. This may be excusable, since the
confusion of b and k was frequent with the ancient
scribes, too. When Greek Jer 52:14 h( meta\ tou= a)rxima/geirou
is retroverted as )#r ()t) rb +bxym (p.
85), one wonders why the particle )t is placed in brackets. Greek
Jer 52:17 kai\ a)ph/negkan is traced to a non-existing Hebrew
verb yb), which in the given case allegedly brought forth the
form wywby)w (p. 92). As it seems, what Person had in mind was
the hifil of the verb bw) that would have given the form
wyby)w*. The Vorlage for Greek Jer 52:21 ku/klw| is
given as sbwb rather than sbyb (p. 87). Greek Jer
52:22 kai\ pe/nte ph/xewn to\ mh=kos u(peroxh\ tou= gei=sous
(misspelt for gei/sous) tou= e(nos (misspelt for
e(no/s) is derived from wqwmt r)# hktrt h)xt xm# )mwt
(p. 94). One would have appreciated an explanation as to how this
retroversion is supposed to relate to the Greek wording. How is the
insertion of r)# justified? Greek mh=kos usually
corresponds to )orek. Iwakim in the Greek translations
of 2 Kgs 25:27 par Jer 52:31 is traced back to yhwyqym (p. 90),
as if at some stage the tradents of the Hebrew text assumed that Jehoiakim
rather than Jehoiachin had been deported to Babylon. Person seems unaware
that the Greek translators routinely rendered both yhwyqym and
yhwyk(y)n by Iwakim (see Greek 2
Kgs 24:6), unlike the spelling yknyhw (or similar) that was
represented by Iexonias. Person's reconstruction of the presumed
Urtext of 2 Kgs 25:9-10 w)t kl byt #rp )#r rb +bxym ... (p. 101)
is incoherent and ungrammatical. Unfortunately, this is only a sample of
what this book offers on virtually every page.
3. Moreover, the proof supplied for his theory that a late Dtr redaction in
Kings can be identified by text-critical means is unconvincing. Kings does
contain examples of late intrusions dressed in Dtr language, like 1 Kgs
6:11-14, but certainly not among Person's material. For instance, his
assumption that 2 Kgs 18:14-16, lacking in the Isaiah parallel, was absent
in the Urtext as well (pp. 54ff.), is without doubt erroneous. To the
contrary, when the Hezekiah chapters were transferred from Kings to Isaiah
these verses were left out because they put Hezekiah's reputation in
jeopardy. And the Masoretic plus in 2 Kgs 20:6 lm(ny wlm(n dwd
(bdy, pace Person (p. 77), is not the hallmark of a Dtr redaction but
a humble conflation with 19:34. Likewise, the non-representation of 2 Kgs
18:25b in Isaiah does not preserve a more ancient reading but is clearly due
to ideological qualms. And finally, Person's opinion that 2 Kgs 24:19-20 (p.
103, misquoted as 25:19-20) must be a "lengthy addition," given its absence
from Greek Jer 52, is certainly wrong, since the Dtr evaluation of Zedekiah
as spelt out in v. 19 is a fundamental constituent of the Dtr framework in
Kings. Apparently the passage was left out by the scribe who replicated the
ending of Kgs in Jer, even though the reasons for this measure are far from
clear. When previous scholars disregarded these variants, it was not because
they lacked critical acumen but because they correctly recognized their
secondary character.
4. This reviewer fully agrees with Person that redaction-critical research
in the books of Kings must carefully consider the deviations of the ancient
versions. The importance of the Septuagint is paramount, and the Old Latin
too includes numerous readings that deserve our attention. Among others,
scholars like Julio Trebolle Barrera (1980, 1984, 1989), Steve McKenzie
(1985, 1991), and Gary Knoppers (1993) have done pioneering work in this
field. Basic matters of correct retroversion apart, however, sound
assessment of the significant data demands a cautious approach, since these
ancient witnesses definitely do contain valuable readings, but more often
than not their readings which vary from the preserved Hebrew text are
secondary. Therefore, identifying cases which allow us to reach back behind
MT requires patient sifting of the material. In Kings, the situation is
different from the book of Jeremiah, where normally the Septuagint
represents a more ancient state of textual development. To this reviewer,
the real value of the ancient versions in Kings does not consist in taking
us back behind some late Dtr redaction but in preserving inobtrusive traces
of the redactional history of these books that have been smoothed over in
the Masoretic edition. Uncovering them still appears a task worth the while.
© TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998.
Bibliography
Knoppers, Gary N. 1993. Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History
of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 52.
Atlanta: Scholars Press.
McKenzie, Steven L. 1985. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic
History. Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
McKenzie, Steven L. 1991. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the
Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum, no. 42. Leiden/New York: Brill.
Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. 1980. Salomón y Jeroboan: historia de la
recensión y redacción de I Reyes 2-12, 14. Bibliotheca Salmanticensis,
Dissertationes, no. 3. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia.
Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. 1984. Jehú y Joás: texto y composición literaria
de 2 Reyes 9-11. Institución San Jerónimo, no. 17. Valencia : Institución
San Jerónimo.
Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. 1989. Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum :
variantes textuales y composición literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes.
Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, no. 47. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto de Filología, Departamento de
Filología Bíblica y de Oriente Antiguo.
Hermann-Josef Stipp
Universität Tübingen
Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät
Abteilung für Altes Testament