Matriz de Marco Lógico

Most importantly, I have chosen to exclude Greek texts (and other versional evidence)

from systematic incorporation at this point in the research for a number of reasons. First, the

linguistic context of a manuscript is one important contextual factor determining the

contextual proximity between manuscripts, such that manuscripts written in different

languages are significantly more distant than manuscripts written in the same language (see

sections 2.2.3.1 and 2.3.2.4). Thus, there is strong warrant within a contextualized approach

for excluding manuscripts written in a different language than the FM from our initial

comparisons.

Second, it must never be forgotten than the “G” cited in most text-critical studies is

not a preserved ancient manuscript, but a scholarly construct. It is an eclectic, critical,

reconstructed text that purports to approximate a state of the text in the third century BCE,

131

are contested. Perhaps most noteworthy is Bogaert’s reconstruction of the Old Greek

tabernacle account against Wevers on the basis of the Old Latin Codex Monacensis (Bogaert

1996). The contextualized approach laid out in chapter 2 is heavily documentary in focus,

building connections between preserved textual artifacts, and it would be entirely

inappropriate to treat a modern eclectic edition as equivalent to an ancient manuscript. Thus,

while I have frequently consulted the edition of Wevers (1991) when G readings are

important for understanding textual evidence within our corpus, I have not systematically

incorporated it as a manuscript witness in this study.

Third, if we insist on a documentary approach to the Greek texts, we encounter a large

body of manuscript evidence that would be entirely impractical to include at this stage of the

research. According to the catalogue of the Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen

(<http://rep.adw-goe.de/bitstream/handle/11858/00-001S-0000-0022-A30C-8/Rahlfs-

Sigeln_Stand_Dezember_2012.pdf?sequence=1>, accessed 19 Sep 2014), there are at least

20 known Greek fragmentary manuscripts containing Exodus material, many of which were

not available to Wevers. The sheer bulk of the material would require an additional

monograph to treat sufficiently and is certainly far beyond the possible scope of this thesis.

Additionally, most of this Greek material is of Egyptian provenance with inscription dates

between the 3rd and 6th centuries CE, which makes them collectively much more closely

contextually connected to each other than to the Hebrew witnesses considered in this thesis.

The same is true of other early Greek witnesses to the text of Exodus.

And fourth, the one example of a Greek papyrus which could feasibly be placed in the

132

the corpus of Greek fragments.1 The incorporation of the Greek papyrus from Qumran

7Q1/Rahlfs 805 would require significant methodological reflection on the use of versional

evidence, which is better dealt with in the context of a full study focusing on the Greek

material. Furthermore, even if 7Q1 were incorporated, there is no overlap between it and any

Hebrew DSS containing Exodus, so the benefits would necessarily be minimal.

For these reasons, I have refrained from systematically incorporating Greek (and other

versional) evidence at this point in the research. This in no way suggests that these witnesses

are unimportant, as this is certainly not the case. In fact, many have suggested that the Greek

(and/or Latin) tradition may actually reflect an editorially earlier stage in the development of

the tabernacle account than our extant Hebrew witnesses (e.g., Aejmelaeus 2007a; Salvesen

2014).2 Rather, this decision reflects an attempt to set methodologically warranted and

pragmatically feasible limits on the data set for this thesis. The Greek (and other versional)

manuscripts deserve to be studied with the same degree of methodological rigor implemented

here for the Hebrew manuscripts without settling for easy shortcuts. For this reason, I defer

1

7Q1 (7QpapLXXExod, previously known as 7QExodus) is written in Greek in a decorated uncial hand from approximately 100 BCE (according to C. H. Roberts, in a personal letter to R. P. de Vaux, cited in Baillet 1962a, 142, DJD 3; Wevers 1991, 14; Lange 2009a, 107). It is reconstructed from two identified papyrus fragments from Exodus 28, which can be placed relative to one another both by reconstruction of the text and by patterns of fibers on the papyrus (Baillet 1962a, 142, DJD 3, identifiication by R. P. Boismard). It is inscribed only on the recto side, which implies a (sc)roll format for the manuscript. No margins have been preserved, so there is no way to estimate the height of the columns or the scroll. The lines consistently average around 20 letters per line (with no spaces between words), and Baillet estimates the column width at around 5.4 cm (Baillet 1962a, 142, DJD 3). Since the column height is unknown there is no way to estimate the total length of the scroll. It is most unlikely that such a papyrus scroll would have contained the entire Pentateuch.

7Q1, therefore, appears to be a continuous-text copy of the book of Exodus. Its text is generally closer to M than to Wevers’ reconstructed G text, with frequent agreements with the Greek minuscules 376 and 72 (Baillet 1962a, 142, DJD 3). Wevers concludes that 7Q1 reflects early recensional activity towards the Hebrew (Wevers 1992, 40), whereas Lange concludes there is not enough text preserved for text-typological analysis (Lange 2009a, 107).

2 _{To date, I have not been able to identify any arrangement of the tabernacle account in any of the Hebrew}

witnesses that could be said to correspond to the Old Greek arrangement, but further reconstruction of the Hebrew DSS containing Exodus may yield more light on this question.

133

thorough treatment of the Greek tradition for a future research project.1 In the meantime, I

have frequently referenced important Greek readings for purposes of reconstructions and

evaluations of variant readings.