Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 64:1 (Mar 2021)
Article: A Comparison Of The Text Of Genesis In Three Traditions: Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint
Author: Andrew E. Steinmann

JETS 64:1 (March 2021) p. 25

A Comparison Of The Text Of Genesis In Three Traditions: Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint

Andrew E. Steinmann*

^* Andrew E. Steinmann is Distinguished Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Concordia University Chicago. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: One often encounters text critical discussions of the Old Testament text that fail to consider the tendencies in the various textual traditions for a particular book of the Scriptures. For Genesis, the three most important of these traditions are the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint. This study presents the results of a thorough collocation of all variants among these three traditions, noting the textual tendencies in each. Those tendencies are then used to examine the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 as a case study of the usefulness of understanding the nature of textual witnesses and applying this knowledge in text critical analysis.

Key words: Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, secondary readings, harmonization, Genesis 5, Genesis 11

Unarguably, the three most important textual traditions for the book of Genesis are the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). One can find general descriptions of the tendencies of each of these texts in Genesis, such as characterizing LXX as “harmonizing” and listing a few examples or alluding to MT as a superior text to that of SP and LXX.1 However, that is of little help in evaluating the text of any of these witnesses in a particular case, because it is difficult to know to what extent LXX presents harmonized readings in Genesis or what the prevalence of other characteristics in MT, SP, or LXX is. Yet, it is of vital importance to understand accurately the characteristics of each tradition when attempting to make text critical judgments about specific variants. Jobes and Silva complain about the deleterious effect that this lack of awareness can have: “The unwillingness on the part of some scholars to take into account the general quality of textual witnesses may lead to atomistic, even

JETS 64:1 (March 2021) p. 26

haphazard, decisions on individual cases.”2 They elaborate further on those who argue that one cannot rely on general tendencies of the textual traditions in evaluating variant readings, stating,

...