Fri Feb 16 00:10:30 1996

From majordom  Fri Feb 16 00:10:30 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA22401; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:10:30 +0500
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:10:22 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" 
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: TC List 
Cc: "Larry W. Hurtado" 
Subject: Qumran evidence for textual diversity
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2455
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

A post on Ioudaios on the Qumran texts raises some questions for me.

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:

> 	As to the *text-critical* question, the Qumran material suggests 
> that there remained a significant degree of variety/fluidity in the 
> textual variation of biblical writings.  We have Heb. mss that exhibit 
> readings corresponding to the previously distinctive readings of the LXX. 
> The far greater number of Qumran biblical mss, however, exhibit MT-type 
> texts, and are called "proto-Massoretic" mss therefore.  At Qumran at 
> least, therefore, we see proto-MT mss dominant, perhaps indicating an 
> emerging preference/popularity for proto-MT text-type that eventuated in 
> this text-type becoming standarized officially as the received Hebrew 
> text.  So, in describing citations of the OT in the NT, it would be 
> proper to label them as appropriate as "proto-LXX" or "proto-MT", meaning 
> that they exhibit readings/variants witnessed to in the LXX or MT, and 
> that these types of texts *were* already circulating in pre-Christian times.

Emanuel Tov in _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ estimates that 60% 
of the Qumran material reflects a proto-Masoretic type of text, 5% are 
pre-Samaritan, 5% are proto-LXX, 20% are written in the "Qumran scribal 
practice" (i.e., plene orthography, lengthened pronouns and pronominal 
suffixes, etc.), and 10% are non-aligned (114-116).  I have heard that 
Tov has recently revised these figures so that the proto-MT group is 
around 40% (?)--presumably the difference is made up by the non-aligned 
group.  Does anyone have the bibliographic reference for his article that 
updates these percentages?  Also, I have never thought that the "Qumran 
practice" group belongs in the same discussion as the other mss.  This 
group is characterized by a certain orthography and morphology, _not_ a 
distinct text-type.  On the basis of their texts, do they belong in one 
of the other groups, or should they be divided among the groups?  My 
impression of 1QIsa-a is that, orthography and morphology aside, it 
should be classified as non-aligned.  Of course, it would be hard to 
determine a proto-LXX for Isaiah.  Does anyone have thoughts on any of 
these points?

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Back