Subject: Qumran evidence for textual diversity

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:10:22 -0500 (EST)

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 <-----------------

---

From: Tyler Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:44:30 -0500 (EST)

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

> 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 
> 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: [email-masked]              Toronto School of Theology 
 Voice/Fax: (416) 963-9082                             University of Toronto 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Andrew Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 01:42:42 -0500 (EST)

> determine a proto-LXX for Isaiah.  Does anyone have thoughts on any of 

Tov's revised figures appear in the paper he contributed to the volume 
_Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness_ edited by Lawrence Schiffman 
and Devorah Dimant (Brill 1995).

I have not read Tov's later piece, but I have talked over this subject a
little with Dr. Schiffman.  In Schiffman's book, he argues from Tov's
initial figures that the MT-text family had started to become the dominant
one much earlier than had been previously thought.  What interests me
about this whole line of reasoning is that I believe it involves a big
methodological leap of faith.  Specifically, even if the figures for
distribution of text-types at Qumran support Schiffman's position, one 
still must assume that the distribution of text-types at Qumran can be 
extrapolated to all of Palestine at that time.  I still don't see how 
such an extrapolation is justified (I'm supposed to stop in during Dr. 
Schiffman's office hours to discuss this some day).

Tov tries to address this point in an article in the Journal of Jewish
Studies (Spring 1988, vol 34:1) -- see especially page 7.  The main
argument he seems to put forth is the fact that most of the Biblical
manuscripts seem to have been copied outside the community and brought to
Qumran.  For James Adair's question, this would at least explain why the
Qumran "practice" texts would not be counted among the groups of
text-types.  In other words, if we want to figure out the state of the
text as it was *throughout* Palestine during the Second Temple Period
based on the Qumran finds, the first thing we should do is set aside all
of the Qumran-type texts in order to control against any possible
idiosyncrasies the Qumran scribes may have brought to the text.

As for dividing up the Qumran texts amongst the other text-types, my 
impression of Tov's approach was that the whole text family picture was a 
lot blurrier than we once thought, and that we must be careful about 
trying to neatly place things within text families.  More specifically, 
he wants to get away from the whole Frank Cross "Local Texts" approach 
because he feels that we have a lot more textual families than previously 
thought.

I'm a little rusty on all this, but I really would love to get this thread
rolling because I find it all very interesting (obviously, since I'm on
this list ;-)).  

As a final note, I must say that I still find Tov's argument for
extrapolation unsatisfying, but I guess one must deal with evidence one 
has.  What does anyone else think?

andrew gross
Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University

---

From: Tyler Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:33:26 -0500 (EST)

> and Devorah Dimant (Brill 1995).

I stand corrected! (I actually have a copy of Tov's article on file, it 
must have just slipped my mind).  In regards to my previous post, in this 
article Tov argues that it is not easy to characterize the textual 
character of the "Qumran practice" texts as the scribes who copied them 
took so many liberties that their Vorlagen cannot be identified (p. 95). 
Nevertheless, I still stand by my previous assertion that Tov is 
comparing apples and oranges and that he should have organized his data 
differently.

> such an extrapolation is justified 

The problem, in my mind, is further complicated by the fact that we have 
only what was found at Qumran; we don't know if we have even fully 
represents the Qumran community, let alone Palestine.

Tyler