Continuity or Contrast? The Character and Extent of Legal versus Narrative Textual Variation in the Hebrew Manuscripts of Exodus 19–24

Abstract

This study takes as its point of departure two emerging consensuses in biblical studies: 1) like the so-called ancient Near Eastern “law codes,” the written biblical laws did not originally function as a binding source of law but, unlike the cuneiform collections, they became re-characterised as such in the Second Temple period; 2) the biblical text remained fluid and pluriform until the Common Era. This dissertation addresses whether the character and extent of textual variation in legal and narrative compositions of the Torah supports or challenges a “law code” conception of law for the late Second Temple period. It begins with an overview of the issues surrounding the character and uses of the cuneiform and biblical law collections. Scholarship has tried to establish if and when these documents were treated as “law codes” and “legislation”: exhaustive, comprehensive and finite written texts that are interpreted with a literalistic mindset to the exclusion of other norms––custom, oral tradition and cultural narratives. By drawing on legal theory and comparative law, an alternative conception of written law is proposed: the legalistic form, understood as a system of meaning-making, does not require fixed textual forms nor the exclusion of other normative sources. In order to test these different conceptions, a method for analysing and comparing the quantity and quality of legal and narrative variants in the Hebrew manuscripts of Exodus 19–24 is constructed. It is applied to the Samaritan Pentateuch, biblical Qumran Scrolls and 4QReworked Pentateuch manuscripts. The study finds that, although there is some evidence that legal texts exhibit less textual diversity than narrative, laws continue to undergo substantial variation and are interpreted according to wider ideological, theological and literary considerations. The adequacy of the legislative model and literalistic interpretation for describing the role of written law is discussed in the conclusion.