Fri Feb 16 00:47:13 1996

From majordom  Fri Feb 16 00:47:13 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA22483; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:47:13 +0500
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:44:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Tyler Williams 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Qumran evidence for textual diversity
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2141
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

> 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?  

They are reported by VanderKam in his _The DSS Today_ (p. 134) The updated 
figures are: proto-MT 40%; Pre-Sam 5%; texts close to Vorlage of LXX 5%; 
non-aligned 25%; and Qumran practice texts 25%. I don't believe Tov has 
published these figures yet.

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? 

I totally agree. In a review of Tov I wrote I noted the same thing. Tov 
should have dealt with "Qumran practice" texts and "non Qumran practice" 
texts in parallel fashion,and then discuss them according to their 
textual affiliations (i.e., of the "Qumran practice" texts which are 
proto-MT, which are non-aligned, etc.). The way he discusses it now he has, 
e.g., 4QDeut-h and 4QDeut-k listed under both "Qumran practice" and 
"non-aligned". This does nothing but confuse matters. 

Tyler
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Tyler F. Williams                   	  	            Wycliffe College 
 Internet: twilliam@epas.utoronto.ca              Toronto School of Theology 
 Voice/Fax: (416) 963-9082                             University of Toronto 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back