Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran

Collected Essays




by


Emanuel Tov









Mohr Siebeck




CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Editions of Textual Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Bibliographical Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

A. HEBREW BIBLE

1. Review of J. Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible . . . 1
2. Deuteronomy 12 and 11QTemple
a
LIILIII:
A Contrastive Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. 4QReworked Pentateuch: A Synopsis of Its Contents . . . . . .
4. Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran . . .
5. The Text of Isaiah at Qumran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts,
with Special Attention Paid to the Samaritan Pentateuch . . .
7. The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and
Masada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew
Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. The Copying of a Biblical Scroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert
An Overview and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX
and MT S T V, Compared with Similar Evidence in Other
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in
the Ancient Synagogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13. The Biblia Hebraica QuintaAn Important Step Forward . . .
14. The Ketiv/Qere Variations in Light of the Manuscripts from
the Judean Desert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15. The Writing of Early Scrolls. Implications for the Literary
Analysis of Hebrew Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16. Recording the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Text Editions of
Hebrew Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VIII CONTENTS

17. The Use of Computers in Biblical Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18. Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis . . . . . . . .
19. Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of
Deuteronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20. Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel
Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from
Qumran and Elsewhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. GREEK BIBLE

21. Introductory Essay to the Second Edition of the Hatch-
Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint
In conjunction with R. A. Kraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22. Approaches towards Scripture Embraced by the Ancient
Greek Translators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23. The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert . . . . . . . . . .
24. The Evaluation of the Greek Scripture Translations in
Rabbinic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25. Biliteral Exegesis of Hebrew Roots in the Septuagint? . . . .
26. The Septuagint and the Deuteronomists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. QUMRAN

27. The Special Character of the Texts Found In Qumran Cave 11 . . .
28. The Number of Manuscripts and Compositions Found at
Qumran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


SOURCES XI

SOURCES

1. Review of: J. Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. The
Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1986, JSS 35 (1990) 30316.
2. Deuteronomy 12 and 11QTemple
a
LIILIII: A Contrastive
Analysis, RevQ 15 (1991) 16973.
3. 4QReworked Pentateuch: A Synopsis of Its Contents, RevQ 16
(1995) 64753.
4. Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran, RevQ 16
(1995) 581600.
5. The Text of Isaiah at Qumran, in Writing & Reading the Scroll of
Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. C. C. Broyles and C. A.
Evans; VTSup 70, 12; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997) II.491511.
6. Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with
Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch, DSD 5 (1998) 33454.
7. The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,
in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the
Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature,
May 1214 1996 (ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28;
Leiden/Boston/Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1998) 23356.
8. The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew Bible:
The Argument against Eclecticism, Textus 20 (2000) 193211.
9. The Copying of a Biblical Scroll, JRH 26 (2002) 189209.
10. The Biblical Texts from the Judean DesertAn Overview and
Analysis, in The Bible as BookThe Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert
Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library & Oak
Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian
Antiquities, 2002) 13966.
11. The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and
MT S T V, Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources, in The
Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text
and the Hebrew Base of the Septuaginta Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker;
SBLSCS 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003) 12144.
12. The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in the
Ancient Synagogues, in The Ancient Synagogue: From Its Origins until 200
C.E.Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University
October 1417, 2001 (ed. B. Olsson and M. Zetterholm; ConBNT 39;
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2003) 23759.
13. The Biblia Hebraica QuintaAn Important Step Forward, JNSL
31 (2005) 121.
XII SOURCES

14. The Ketiv/Qere Variations in Light of the Manuscripts from the
Judean Desert, in Text, Theology & Translation, Essays in Honour of Jan de
Waard (ed. S. Crisp and M. Jinbachian; United Bible Societies, 2004) 199
207.
15. The Writing of Early Scrolls. Implications for the Literary
Analysis of Hebrew Scripture, in lcrit et lEsprit. tudes dhistoire du
texte et de thologie biblique en hommage Adrian Schenker (ed. D. Bhler et
al.; OBO 214; Fribourg: Academic Press/Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 2005) 35571.
16. Recording the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Text Editions of Hebrew
Scripture, in Historie og konstruktion, Festskrift til Niels Peter Lemche I
anledning af 60 rs fdselsdagen den 6, September 2005 (ed. M. Mller and
Th. L. Thompson; FBE 14; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag,
Kbenhavns Universitet, 2005) 38795.
17. The Use of Computers in Biblical Research, in Studies in the
Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. P.
W. Flint et al.; VTSup 101; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2006) 33759.
18. Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis, in From
4QMMT to ResurrectionMlanges qumraniens en hommage mile Puech
(ed. F. Garca Martnez et al.; STDJ 61; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2006)
281312.
19. Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy,
in Studies in Deuteronomy and Ancient Israelite Religion Presented to Jeffrey
H. Tigay (ed. N. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008) xxx-xxx
20. Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel
Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and
Elsewhere, in Die Septuaginta Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (ed. M.
Karrer and W. Kraus; WUNT xxx; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007) xxx-
xxx.
21. With R. A. Kraft: Introductory Essay, to: E. Hatch and H. A.
Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the
Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (2d ed.; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Books, 1998) xixix.
22. Approaches towards Scripture Embraced by the Ancient Greek
Translators, in Der Mensch vor GottForschungen zum Menschenbild in
Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift fr Herrmann Lichtenberger
zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. U. Mittmann-Richert et al.; Neukirchener:
Neukirchen, 2003) 21328.
23. The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert, in The Bible as
Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (ed. S. McKendrick and O. A.
SOURCES XIII

O'Sullivan; London: British Library and Oak Knoll Press in association
with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003) 97122.
24. The Evaluation of the Greek Scripture Translations in Rabbinic
Sources, in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in
Honour of Johan Lust (ed. F. Garca Martnez and M. Vervenne; BETL
CXCII; Leuven/Paris/Dudley, Mass.: University Press/Peeters, 2005)
38599.
25. Biliteral Exegesis of Hebrew Roots in the Septuagint? in
Reflection and Refraction. Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A.
Graeme Auld (ed. R. Rezetko et al.; VTSup 113; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006)
45982.
26. The Septuagint and the Deuteronomists, Textus 25 (2007)
forthcoming.
27. The Special Character of the Texts Found in Qumran Cave 11, in
Things Revealed. Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of
Michael E. Stone (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; JSJSup 89; Leiden/Boston: E. J.
Brill, 2004) 18796.
28. The Number of Manuscripts and Compositions Found at
Qumran, in Feasts and Fasts, A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown
(ed. M. Dacy et al.; Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 11; Sydney:
University of Sydney, 2005) 6779.




EDITIONS OF TEXTUAL SOURCES

LXX The individual volumes in the Gttingen Septuagint
series, when extant; otherwise the text of LXX is quoted
from the edition of Rahlfs, Septuaginta.
LXX
MS(S)
The individual volumes in the Gttingen Septuagint
series, when extant; otherwise the text of the
manuscript(s) is quoted from the editions of the
Cambridge series.
LXX
Luc
The Lucianic tradition (mainly manuscripts b,o,c
2
,e
2

according to the sigla used in the Cambridge
Septuagint) of the LXX, quoted according to the
Gttingen and Cambridge editions.
MT BHS
S The Leiden edition of the Peshitta, when extant: The Old
Testament in Syriac According to the Peshit ta Version
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966 ). Otherwise the edition of Lee
(London 1823) is quoted.
SP Tal, Samaritan Pentateuch,
T
O
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manu-
scripts and Printed Texts, vols. I-IVa (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
19591968).
V R. Weber, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem (2d ed.;
Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1975).















XVIII EDITIONS




















PERIODICALS, REFERENCE WORKS, AND SERIALS

AASF Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AHAW Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
ALBO Analecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia
AnBib Analecta Biblica
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
APSP American Philosophical Society Proceedings
ArBib The Aramaic Bible
ArOr Archiv Orientln
ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
ATA Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
Atiqot Atiqot
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrge
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BHT Beitrge zur historischen Theologie
Bib Biblica
BibOr Biblica et orientalia
BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
BT The Bible Translator
BWA(N)T Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen
Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
XX ABBREVIATIONS

CahRB Cahiers de la Revue biblique
CATSS Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies
CB Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
ConBNT Coniectanea neotestamentica/Coniectanea biblica: New
Testament Series
ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series
DB Dictionnaire de la Bible
DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplment
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
EncBib Encyclopaedia Biblica (Heb.)
EncBrit Encyclopaedia Britannica
EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica
ErIsr Eretz Israel
EstBib Estudios bblicos
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
FBE Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
Hen Henoch
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Harvard Theological Studies
HUB Hebrew University Bible
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IDB The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible
IDBSup The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary
Volume
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IOSCS International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JAC Jahrbuch fr Antike und Christentum
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
ABBREVIATIONS XXI

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JRH Journal of Religious History
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement
Series
JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement
Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KEH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament (Leipzig 1838 )
LU Lunds universitets rsskrift
McCQ McCormick Quarterly
MdB Le Monde de la Bible
MGWJ Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens
Muson Muson: Revue dtudes orientales
NAWG Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gttingen
NJPST New JPS translation (see bibliography)
NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OLA Orientalia lovaniensia
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentische Studin
PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research
PG Patrologia graeca
RB Revue biblique
REg Revue dgyptologie
REJ Revue des tudes juives
RevQ Revue de Qumran
RHR Revue de lhistoire des religions
RQ Romische Quartalschrift fr christliche Altertumskunde und
Kirchengeschichte
RSO Revista degli studi orientali
Salm Salmanticensis
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations
SBAB Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbnde
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
XXII ABBREVIATIONS

SBLMasS Society of Biblical Literature Masoretic Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate
Studies
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
ScrHier Scripta hierosolymitana
SE Studia evangelica
SE Svensk Exegetisk rsbok
Sem Semitica
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
STK Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift
SubBi Subsidia biblica
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TRu Theologische Rundschau
TQ Theologische Quartalschrift
TS Texts and Studies
TS, NS Texts and Studies, New Series
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
TvT Tijdschrift voor theologie
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche













BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
Albertz, Daniel
R. Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel, Untersuchungen zu Daniel 46 in der
Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramischen
Danielbuches (SBS 131; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988)
Barr, Comparative Philology
J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1986; repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987)
, Literalism
J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (NAWG I,
Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1979, 11 = MSU XV; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1979) 279325
Barthlemy, Devanciers
D. Barthlemy, Les devanciers dAquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963)
, Critique textuelle
, Critique textuelle de lAncien Testament, 13 (OBO 50/13; Fribourg/
Gttingen: Universittsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19821992)
, Lenchevtrement
, Lenchevtrement de lhistoire textuelle et de lhistoire littraire dans
les relations entre la Septante et le Texte MassortiqueModifications
dans la manire de concevoir les relations existant entre la LXX et le TM,
depuis J. Morin jusqu E. Tov, in PietersmaCox, De Septuaginta, 2140
BDB
S. R. Driver, F. Brown, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957)
Beckwith, Old Testament Canon
R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985)
BH
XXIV ABBREVIATIONS

Biblia Hebraica (1st and 2d eds.: ed. R. Kittel, Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905,
1913; 3d ed.: ed. R. Kittel and P. Kahle, 19291937; 3d [7
th
] ed.: ed. R. Kittel,
P. Kahle, A. Alt, and O. Eissfeldt, 1951; all Stuttgart: Wrttembrgische
Bibelanstalt)
BHQ
Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. A. Schenker et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2004 ), Part 5: Deuteronomium (xxx); Part 17: Proverbs
(ed. J. de Waard, 2008); Part 18: General Introduction and Megilloth (ed. P. B.
Dirksen et al.; 2004); Part 20: Ezra and Nehemiah (ed. D. Marcus; 2006).)
BHS
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. W. Rudolph and K. Elliger; Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 19671977; last printing to date: 1997)
Bible grecque
M. Harl, G. Dorival, and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des SeptanteDu
judasme hellnistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1988)
Biblia Qumranica
Biblia Qumranica, Vol. 3B Minor Prophets (ed. B. Ego, A. Lange, H.
Lichtenberger, and K. De Troyer; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004)
Bickerman, Septuagint
E. Bickerman, The Septuagint as a Translation, Studies in Jewish and
Christian History 1 (AGJU 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976) 167200 (published
first in PAAJR 28 [1959] 139)
, Notes
, Notes on the Greek Book of Esther, Studies in Jewish and Christian
History 1 (AGJU 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976) 24674
Blau, Studien
L. Blau, Studien zum althebrischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Literatur-
und Textgeschichte (Strasbourg i. E.: Adolf Alkalay, 1902)
Border Line
On the Border LineTextual Meets Literary CriticismProceedings of a Conference in
Honor of Alexander Rof on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Heb.; ed. Z. Talshir
and D. Amara; Beer Sheva XVIII; Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Press, 2005)
Brock, Phenomenon
S. P. Brock, The Phenomenon of the Septuagint, OTS 17 (1972) 1136
ABBREVIATIONS XXV

, Aspects
, Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity, GRBS 20 (1979) 6987
BrookeGarca Martnez, New Qumran Texts
New Qumran Texts and StudiesProceedings of the First Meeting of the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. G. J. Brooke
and F. Garca Martnez; STDJ XV, Leiden/New York/Cologne: E. J. Brill,
1994)
Burrows, Isaiah
M. Burrows with the assistance of J. C. Trever and W. H. Brownlee, The
Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Marks Monastery, I, The Isaiah Manuscript and the
Habakkuk Commentary (New Haven, Conn.: ASOR, 1950)
chapter*
References with a star (e.g. chapter 1*) refer to chapters in this book.
Cohen, Miqraot Gedolot Haketer
M. Cohen, Miqraot Gedolot HaketerA Revised and Augmented Scientific
Edition of Miqraot Gedolot Based on the Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval
MSS, parts 17 (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 19922000)
CottonGeiger, Masada II
H. M. Cotton and J. Geiger, Masada II, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963
1965, Final Reports, The Latin and Greek Documents (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1989)
Cox, VI Congress
VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (ed. C. E. Cox; SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987)
, VII Congress
VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Leuven 1989 (ed. C. E. Cox; SBLSCS 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1991)
Cross, ALQ
3

F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (3d ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995)
Dimant, Apocryphon
D. Dimant, The Apocryphon of Joshua4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal, in Paul,
Emanuel, 179204
XXVI ABBREVIATIONS

DJD I
D. Barthlemy, O.P. and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD I; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1955)
DJD II
P. Benoit, O.P., J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabbat (DJD
II; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961)
DJD III
M. Baillet et al., Les petites grottes de Qumrn (DJD III; Oxford: Clarendon,
1962)
DJD IV
J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrn Cave 11 (11QPs
a
) (DJD IV;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1965)
DJD V
J. M. Allegro, Qumrn Cave 4.I (4Q1584Q186) (DJD V; Oxford: Clarendon,
1968)
DJD VI
R. de Vaux and J. T. Milik, Qumrn grotte 4.II: I. Archologie, II. Tefillin,
Mezuzot et Targums (4Q1284Q157) (DJD VI; Oxford: Clarendon, 1977)
DJD VII
M. Baillet, Qumrn grotte 4.III (4Q4824Q520) (DJD VII; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1982)
DJD VIII
E. Tov with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll
from Nah al Hever (8H evXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection I) (DJD VIII; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1990)
DJD IX
P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and J. E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-
Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD IX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992)
DJD X
E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Maas ha-Torah (DJD
X; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)
DJD XI
E. Eshel et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady, Qumran
Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XI; Oxford: Clarendon,
1998)
ABBREVIATIONS XXVII

DJD XII
Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. E. Ulrich and F. M. Cross; DJD
XII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)
DJD XIII
H. Attridge et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.VIII:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)
DJD XIV
Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich and F.
M. Cross; DJD XIV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995)
DJD XV
E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets (DJD XV; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997)
DJD XVI
E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2000)
DJD XVII
F. M. Cross, D. Parry, and E. Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4.XII: 12 Samuel (DJD
XVII; Oxford: Clarendon, 2005)
DJD XVIII
J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266
273) (DJD XVIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996)
DJD XIX
M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.XIV:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XIX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995)
DJD XX
T. Elgvin et al., in consultation with J. A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Qumran Cave 4.XV:
Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD XX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997)
DJD XXI
S. Talmon, J. Ben Dov, and U. Glessmer, Qumran Cave 4.XVI: Calendrical
Texts (DJD XXI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001)
DJD XXII
G. Brooke et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.XVII:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD XXII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996)
DJD XXIII
XXVIII ABBREVIATIONS

F. Garca Martnez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran
Cave 11.II: 11Q218, 11Q2030 (DJD XXIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998)
DJD XXIV
M. J. W. Leith, Wadi Daliyeh Seal Impressions (DJD XXIV; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997)
DJD XXV
. Puech, Qumran Cave 4.XVIII: Textes hbreux (4Q5214Q528, 4Q576
4Q579) (DJD XXV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998)
DJD XXVI
P. Alexander and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-Yahad and
Two Related Texts (DJD XXVI; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998)
DJD XXVII
H. M. Cotton and A. Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek Documentary
Texts from Nah al H ever and Other Sites, with an Appendix Containing Alleged
Qumran Texts (The Seiyl Collection II) (DJD XXVII; Oxford: Clarendon,
1997)
DJD XXVIII
D. M. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh; E.
Schuller et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady, Qumran
Cave 4.XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2 (DJD XXVIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001)
DJD XXIX
E. Chazon et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady,
Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XXIX; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1999)
DJD XXX
D. Dimant, Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic
Texts (DJD XXX; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001)
DJD XXXI
. Puech, Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes aramens, premire partie: 4Q529549
(DJD XXXI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001)
DJD XXXIII
D. Pike and A. Skinner, Qumran Cave 4.XXIII: Unidentified Fragments (DJD
XXXIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001)
DJD XXXIV
ABBREVIATIONS XXIX

J. Strugnell, D. J. Harrington, S.J., and T. Elgvin, in consultation with J. A.
Fitzmyer, S.J., Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: 4QInstruction (Msar le Mevn): 4Q415
ff. (DJD XXXIV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999)
DJD XXXV
J. Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4.XXV: Halakhic Texts (DJD XXXV;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1999)
DJD XXXVI
S. J. Pfann, Cryptic Texts; P. Alexander et al., in consultation with J.
VanderKam and M. Brady, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD
XXXVI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000)
DJD XXXVIII
J. Charlesworth et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady,
Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert (DJD XXXVIII; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2000)
DJD XXXIX
E. Tov et al., The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to
the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (DJD XXXIX; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2002)
Dogniez, Bibliography
C. Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint = Bibliographie de la Septante 1970
1993 (VTSup 60; Leiden/New York: E. J. Brill, 1995)
DSS After Fifty Years
The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, vols. 12
(ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden/Boston/Cologne: E. J. Brill,
1998, 1999)
Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible
The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic
Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker;
SBLSCS 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003)
Encyclopedia DSS
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C.
VanderKam; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls
P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17;
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997)
XXX ABBREVIATIONS

Fraenkel, Studien zur Septuaginta
Studien zur SeptuagintaRobert Hanhart zu Ehren (ed. D. Fraenkel et al.,
MSU XX; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990)
Frankel, Vorstudien
Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841; repr.,
Westmead: Gregg, 1972)
, Einfluss
, ber den Einfluss der palstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische
Hermeneutik (Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1851)
Garca MartnezParry, Bibliography
F. Garca Martnez and D. W. Parry, A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah
197095 (STDJ 19; Leiden/New York/Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1996)
GeseniusKautzsch, Grammar
E. Kautzsch, Gesenius Hebrew Grammar

(2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910)
Ginsburg, Introduction
C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew
Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr. New York: Ktav, 1966)
Gooding, Text and Midrash
D. W. Gooding, Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of
Reigns, Textus 7 (1969) 129
, Relics
, Relics of Ancient Exegesis, A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2
(SOTSMS 4; Cambridge: University Press, 1976)
Gordis, Biblical Text
R. Gordis, The Biblical Text in the MakingA Study of the KethibQere
(Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1937; repr. New York: Ktav, 1971)
GreenspoonMunnich, VIII Congress
VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich; SBLSCS 41;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995)
Hendel, Genesis
R. S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 111Textual Studies and Critical Edition
(New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)
HOTTP
ABBREVIATIONS XXXI

D. Barthlemy et al., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old
Testament Text Project, vols. 15 (2d rev. ed.; New York: United Bible
Societies, 19791980);
HR
E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other
Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), IIII
(Oxford: Clarendon, 18921906; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- u.
Verlagsanstalt, 1954; 2d ed.: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998 [with
a Hebrew/Aramaic Index by T. Muraoka])
HUBIsaiah
M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Hebrew University Bible, The Book of Isaiah
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995)
Jellicoe, SMS
S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968)
Kahle, Cairo Geniza
P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1959)
van Keulen, Two Versions
P. S. F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative. An Inquiry into the
Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 211 and LXX 3 Reg. 211 (VTSup 104;
Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2005)
Kraft, Septuagintal Lexicography
Septuagintal Lexicography (ed. R. A. Kraft; SBLSCS 1; Missoula, Mont.: SBL,
1972)
Kraus, Talmudische Archologie
S. Krauss, Talmudische Archologie, III (Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1912; repr.
Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966)
Kutscher, Language
Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(1QIs
a
) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974)
Leaney, Greek Manuscripts
R. C. Leaney, Greek Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert, in Studies in
New Testament Language and Text. Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick
on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. J. K. Elliott; NovTSup 44;
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976) 283300
Levine, The Ancient Synagogue
XXXII ABBREVIATIONS

L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2000)
Lieberman, Hellenism
S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (2d ed.; New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1962)
LSJ
H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1940); LSJ is used together with LSJ, Supplement and P.
G. W. Glare, Revised Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996)
LSJ, Supplement
E. A. Barber, A Greek-English Lexicon, A Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon,
1968)
Lust, Ezekiel
Ezekiel and his Book, Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (ed.
J. Lust; BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986)
Manchester Symposium
Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International
Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Other Writings, Manchester, 1990 (ed. G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars; SBLSCS
33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992)
Martin, Scribal Character
M. Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vols. III
(Bibliothque du Muson 44; Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1958)
Masada III
E. Netzer, Masada III, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 19631965, Final Reports,
The BuildingsStratigraphy and Architecture (Jerusalem: IES, 1991)
Masada VI
S. Talmon and Y. Yadin, Masada VI, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963
1965, Final Reports, Hebrew Fragments from Masada (Jerusalem: IES, 1999)
MetsoUlrich, Leviticus
S. Metso and E. Ulrich, The Old Greek Translation of Leviticus, in The
Book of Leviticus, Composition and Reception (ed. R. Rendtorff and R. A.
Kugler; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2003) 24868
Mikra
ABBREVIATIONS XXXIII

Mikra, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section Two, I
(ed. M. J. Mulder; Assen-Maastricht: Van Gorcum, Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1988)
Milik, Enoch
J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrn Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1976)
Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah
C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB; Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977)
NAB
The New American Bible (New York/London: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1970)
NEB
The New English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford/Cambridge: Oxford
University Press/Cambridge University Press, 1970)
NJPST
Tanakh nt. A New Translation of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES According to the
Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia/New York/Jerusalem: Jewish
Publication Society, 1985)
NRSV
The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/
Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Version (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1989)
Of Scribes and Scrolls
Of Scribes and Scrolls, Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism,
and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell (ed. H. W. Attridge;
College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5; Lanham, Md.:
University Press of America, 1990)
Parry-Qimron, Isaiah
D. W. Parry and E. Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa
a
): A New Edition
(STDJ 32; Leiden/Boston/Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1999)
Paul, Emanuel
Emanuel, Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of
Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W.
Fields, with the assistance of E. Ben-David; VTSup 94; Leiden/Boston: E. J.
Brill, 2003)
XXXIV ABBREVIATIONS

PietersmaCox, De Septuaginta
De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth
Birthday (ed. A. Pietersma and C. E. Cox; Mississauga, Ont.: Benben, 1984)
Prijs, Tradition
L. Prijs, Jdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1948)
Puech, Pierre de Sion
. Puech, La pierre de Sion et lautel des holocaustes daprs un
manuscrit hbreu de la grotte 4 (4Q522), RB 99 (1992) 67696
Qimron, Joshua Cycles
E. Qimron, Concerning Joshua Cycles from Qumran, Tarbiz 63 (1995)
5038 (Heb. with Eng. summ.).
Rahlfs, Septuaginta
A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes
(Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935)
REB
The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford/Cambridge: Oxford
University Press/Cambridge University Press, 1989)
Renewed Covenant
The Community of the Renewed Covenant, The Notre Dame Symposium on the
Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism
in Antiquity 10; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994)
RSV
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Revised Standard
Version (London/Glasgow: Collins, 1952)
Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version
A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the PentateuchWith
Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: 19611965)
Schenker, Septante
A. Schenker, Septante et texte Massortique dans lhistoire la plus ancienne du
texte de 1 Rois 214 (CahRB 48; Paris 2000)
Scribal Practices, see: Tov, Scribal Practices

Schiffman, Dead Sea Scrolls
ABBREVIATIONS XXXV

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the
Jerusalem Congress, July 2025, 1997 (ed. L. Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society and The Shrine of the Book, 2000)
Skehan, Qumran Manuscripts
P. W. Skehan, The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism, VTSup 4
(1957) 14860
, Qumran, Littrature de Qumran
, Qumran, Littrature de Qumran, A. Textes bibliques, DBSup, vol. IX
(Paris: Letouzey et An, 1979) 80522
Sperber, Historical Grammar
A. Sperber, A Historical Grammar of Biblical HebrewA Presentation of
Problems with Suggestions to Their Solution (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966)
Stegemann, Weitere Stcke
H. Stegemann, Weitere Stcke von 4QpPsalm 37, von 4QPatriarchal
Blessings und Hinweis auf eine unedierte Handschrift aus Hhle 4Q mit
Exzerpten aus dem Deuteronomium, RevQ 6 (1967) 193227
, Library
, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus
(Grand Rapids/Cambridge and Leiden/New York/Cologne: Eerdmans/
E. J. Brill, 1998)
Steudel, Der Midrasch
A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde
(4QMidrEschat
a.b
) (STDJ 13; Leiden/New York/Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1994)
Sukenik, wsr hmgylwt hgnwzwt
E. L. Sukenik, wsr hmgylwt hgnwzwt shbydy hwnybrsyth hbryt (Jerusalem:
Bialik Institute and the Hebrew University, 1954)
Swete, Introduction
H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2d ed.;
Cambridge: University Press, 1914)
Tal, Samaritan Pentateuch
A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch, Edited According to MS 6 (C) of the
Shekhem Synagogue (Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and
Related Subjects 8; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1994)
Talshir, Image
XXXVI ABBREVIATIONS

Z. Talshir, The Image of the Septuagint Edition of the Book of Kings, Tarbiz 59
(1990) 249302 (Heb. with English abstract).
Talmon, World of Qumran
S. Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989)
Taylor, X Congress
X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Oslo 1998 (ed. B. A. Taylor; SBLSCS 51; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
2001)
TCHB
see Tov, TCHB
TCU
see Tov, TCU
Thackeray, Grammar
H. St. J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the
Septuagint (Cambridge: University Press, 1909)
, Septuagint
, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (Schweich Lectures 1920; London: Milford,
1921)
The Bible as Book
The Bible as Book: Scriptures at Qumran, The Proceedings of the Conference on
the Scriptures at Qumran, Hampton Court, Herefordshire, 1821 June 2000 (ed.
E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2001)
Tigay, Empirical Models
Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J. H. Tigay; Philadelphia:
University of Philadelphia Press, 1985)
Tov, Methodology
E. Tov, The Methodology of Textual Criticism in Jewish Greek
Scriptures, with Special Attention to the Problems in SamuelKings: The
State of the Question: Problems and Proposed Solutions in 1972
Proceedings, IOSCS (ed. R. A. Kraft; SBLSCS 2; Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1972)
315. Revised edition: Greek and Hebrew Bible, 48999
, Jeremiah and Baruch
, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and BaruchA Discussion of an
Early Revision of Jeremiah 2952 and Baruch 1:13:8 (HSM 8; Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976)
ABBREVIATIONS XXXVII

, Midrash-Type Exegesis
, Midrash-Type Exegesis in the LXX of Joshua, RB 85 (1978) 5061.
Revised edition: The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 15363
, Pentateuch
, The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the
Translation of the Other Books, in Mlanges Dominique Barthlemy (ed. P.
Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker; OBO 38; Fribourg/Gttingen: ditions
universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 57792. Revised edition:
Greek and Hebrew Bible, 18394
, The Lucianic Text
, The Lucianic Text of the Canonical and the Apocryphal Sections of
Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book, Textus 10 (1982) 125. Revised edition:
Greek and Hebrew Bible, 53548
, Septuagint Translators
, Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand Their Hebrew
Text? in De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His
Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. A. Pietersma and C. Cox; Mississauga, Ont.:
Benben Press, 1984) 5370. Revised edition: Greek and Hebrew Bible, 20318
, Rabbinic Tradition
, The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the Alterations Inserted into the
Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX, JSJ
15 (1984) 6589. Revised edition: Greek and Hebrew Bible, 118
, LXX Additions.
, The LXX Additions (Miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2, Textus 11 (1984) 89
118. Revised edition: Greek and Hebrew Bible, 54970
, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings
, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, in Melbourne Symposium on
Septuagint Lexicography (ed. T. Muraoka; SBLSCS 28; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1990) 83125. Revised edition: Greek and Hebrew Bible, 10928
, Socio-Religious Background
, The Socio-Religious Background of the Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Texts
Found at Qumran, in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift fr Martin
Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Cancik et al.; 3 vols., Tbingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1996) 1.35374
, TCU
XXXVIII ABBREVIATIONS

, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (2d ed.;
Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997)
, Greek and Hebrew Bible
, The Greek and Hebrew BibleCollected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup
72; Leiden/Boston/Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1999)
, TCHB
, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d rev. ed.; Assen/Maastricht: Van
Gorcum, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001)
, Place of Masoretic Text
, The Place of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the
Hebrew Bible: The Relevance of Canon, in The Canon Debate (ed. L.
McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002) 23451
, Scribal Practices
, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean
Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004)
, Many Forms
, Reflections on the Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture in Light of the
LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch, forthcoming
TovPfann, Companion Volume
E. Tov with the collaboration of S. J. Pfann, Companion Volume to the Dead
Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993; second revised
edition, 1995)
Trebolle, Madrid Qumran Congress
The Madrid Qumran CongressProceedings of the International Congress on
the Dead Sea ScrollsMadrid, 1821 March, 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and
L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden/Madrid: E. J. Brill, 1992)
, Jewish Bible
, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of
the Bible (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden/New York/Grand Rapids:
Brill/Eerdmans, 1998)
Turner, Greek Manuscripts
E. G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (2d ed., revised and
enlarged by P. J. Parsons; Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin
Supplement 46; London: University of London, 1987)
Ulrich, DSS
ABBREVIATIONS XXXIX

E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 1999)
, Septuagint Manuscripts
, The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of Their
Value, in idem, DSS, 16583
Veltri, Eine Torah
G. Veltri, Eine Tora fr den Knig TalmaiUntersuchungen zum
bersetzungsverstndnis in der jdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen
Literatur (TSAJ 41; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994)
, Gegenwart
, Gegenwart der TraditionStudien zur jdischen Literatur und
Kulturgeschichte (JSJSup 69; Leiden/BostonCologne: E. J. Brill, 2002)
Walters, Text
P. Walters, The Text of the Septuagint, Its Corruptions and Their Emendation
(Cambridge: University Press, 1973)
Wellhausen, Samuel
J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bcher Samuelis (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1871)
Wevers, Early Revision
J. W. Wevers, An Early Revision of the Septuagint of Numbers, ErIsr 16
(1982) 235*39*
Yadin, Temple Scroll
Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Institute
of Archaeology of the Hebrew University, Shrine of the Book, 1983)
XL ABBREVIATIONS





OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

Aq Aquila
b. Babylonian Talmud
BH Biblical Hebrew
CD The Damascus Document from the Cairo Geniza
G
IES
Septuagint
Israel Exploration Society
j.
JPS
kaige-Th
Jerusalem Talmud
Jewish Publication Society
kaige-Theodotion
K Ketiv
La Vetus Latina (Old Latin)
LXX Septuagint
MH Mishnaic Hebrew
MT Masoretic Text
OG
OHB
Old Greek (translation of the LXX)
Oxford Hebrew Bible
PAM Palestine Archaeology Museum
Q Qere
S
Syh
Peshitta
Syro-Hexapla
SP Samaritan Pentateuch
Sym Symmachus
T Targum
T
J
Targum Jonathan
T
O
Targum Onqelos
T
Ps-J
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Th
UBS
Theodotion
United Bible Societies
V Vulgate









CHAPTER ONE

THE VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

James Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (The Schweich
Lectures of the British Academy 1986; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1989) pp. XII + 239 (including 66 figures)
Few scholars would be able to discuss the spelling of the Hebrew Bible in
such a lucid way as James Barr has done in his monograph based on his
Schweich lectures of 1986. The work on this topic is a direct corollary of
the authors editorial work on the Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, which,
however, has been suspended in the meantime (p. 13). This is a very
important monograph, providing data that are basic for several
disciplines, so that a detailed discussion is in order.
The basic concepts and the issues under investigation are outlined in
Chapter One. The discussion refers only to MT, although the title of the
work, as well as the analysis itself, constantly refers to the biblical text
and spelling. In Chapter One, the author describes what is meant by
spelling and variable spelling, a concept around which the whole book
is built. The data are amply illustrated, such as in figures 1 and 2 which
list the distribution of the different spellings of ephod (~cx and ~:cx) and
tol
e
dot in the construct state (that is, ~~:~, ~~::~, ~:~:~ and ~:~::~). Words
can be spelled with or without waw, with or without yod, etc., and often
these possibilities are multiplied when the variation pertains to two or
more positions in the same word. These different spellings are described
as variable, and in Barrs words:
One out of every few words is a word of potentially variable spelling,
so that there are many thousands of cases in the biblical text . . . the
variability of the biblical spelling is one of its fundamental
characteristics, and for that reason the recognition of it has been
placed in the title of this work . . . (p. 2).
The author contrasts his own approach with that of Cross and
Freedman.
1
These two authors were especially involved in the

1
F. M. Cross, Jr. and D. N. Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography (New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1952).
2 CHAPTER ONE
comparison between the spelling of MT and that of external sources,
while Barr aims at giving an internal description of the biblical spelling.
Thus, the major stress of this book is on the distribution of the different
spellings within each of the biblical books as well as between them.
These are graphically presented in 66 figures or maps, as they are
named on p. 4. These figures refer to select examples, and no attempt is
made to provide an exhaustive description of the evidence.
The topic must have been in the air, since at the time when Barrs
Schweich lectureson which the monograph is basedwere delivered,
another book was published on the same topic.
2
This book likewise
analyzes the distribution of the spellings, this time with the aid of
computerized data. Its two authors worked independently of Barr, and
Barrs views on their work have been published in an extensive review.
3

When the distribution of the spelling patterns in MT is studied, it is
important to agree upon a base text. Scholars realize that there is no such
thing as the Masoretic Text. Rather, different Masoretic texts are
recognized, and it is well known that these texts differ in spelling, not
only in the medieval Masoretic codices (e.g., the Leningrad codex B19
A

[L] and the Aleppo codex [A]), but also in the much earlier Judean Desert
scrolls belonging to the same (proto-)Masoretic family. These Judean
Desert scrolls could bring us closer to the source of the Masoretic
spelling, but since none of these is preserved in its entirety, not even the
more complete ones among them, they have not been considered by Barr
as a source for his research. Rather, although not spelling out this
approach, he has started directly from the best medieval Ben-Asher text
which has been preserved in its entirety, viz., the Leningrad codex B19
A

(L) as recorded in BHS and Dothans edition. Alongside these printed
editions, the facsimile editions of L and A have also been used together
with the concordance of Mandelkern. The very differences between these
editions and tools are problematic, and Barr is aware of this. On p. 6, he
gives some examples of such differences, and he demonstrates how they
affect the statistical picture in the case of low-frequency words. But these
differences in spelling between the mentioned editions are the exception
rather than the rule. In Barrs words:
A smallish percentage of divergence must commonly be allowed for,
often two or three per cent, sometimes rising to five or so; but I have
not found that divergence to be of such a magnitude as to obscure the
main lines of the spelling patterns in the Bible as a whole (p. 6).

2
F. I. Andersen and A. D. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (BibOr 41; Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1986).
3
JSS 33 (1988) 12231.
REVIEW OF BARR, VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 3
The book is divided into two parts of unequal length. The first and
major part consists of an introductory chapter (The Problem and the
Approach, pp. 143) and the main body of evidence (Chapter Two,
The Central Groups of Evidence, pp. 44167). Chapter One introduces
the basic issues and problems. Chapter Two is concerned with locating
some general rules within the labyrinth of biblical spelling. The second
part (Chapter Three: Parallels and Combinations, pp. 16885), on the
other hand, stresses the unsystematic character of that spelling.
Barr redefines known concepts and introduces new concepts in the
analysis of the Masoretic spelling on pp. 21 ff. He distinguishes between
a group of identical spellings (block spellings) of a given word in a certain
context (where a body of text uses the same spelling throughout [p.
12]) and rapid alternation (where a text passes rapidly back and forward
between two or more spellings [p. 12]). The example given in figure 3
refers to the different spellings of sh
e
mot in the Torah, with or without
the article, but in the absolute state only. The word is spelled ~:: in Num
1:26-32 (4 x), 36-42 (4 x), but ~::: in 1:2-24 (6 x). On the other hand, rapid
alternation for this word is found in Gen 26:18, where the different
spellings appear in the same verse. The latter pattern of spelling is
extremely common and pervasive (p. 24). According to Barr, the
presence of both of these systems or habits in the same context shows
that one scribe, and not different ones, was at work. Variety and
inconsistency rather than a systematic approach must have characterized
the work of the individual scribes.
Another concept described by Barr is the affix effect (pp. 14, 2532). In
Barrs words (p. 14), when words have plural terminations or other
suffixes added, this often alters the characteristic spelling away from that
found in the absolute singular. The main phenomenon recognizable in
this regard is that words that are otherwise spelled plene, that is with
waw or yod, lose their mater lectionis when an element is affixed to the
word. Thus in 215 instances olam is written plene (:::.), but when a
lamed is prefixed to the word, it is usually spelled defectively in the
Torah (ten times as against two instances of a full spellingsee figure 9).
In another case, too, the affix effect is at work in the Torah. In that
corpus, :~:, with the article, is more frequent than ::~:, while ::~: is the
frequent spelling in that word without the article. Outside the Torah, the
word is always spelled plene. The -im endings of masculine nouns
written without yod (p. 47) are a special case since they often preserve the
middle mater lectionis. In the formulation of this affix effect, Barr tries
to reach a better understanding of what previously has been taken as the
avoidance of juxtaposing two plene spellings.
4 CHAPTER ONE
On the basis of these new definitions and perceptions the author
formulates the central question in the evaluation of these spellings (pp.
323). The formulation of this central question actually pertains only to
the issues raised by the affix effect, although the following pages are
not limited to this issue. The two possible explanations suggested by
Barr refer either to the linguistic level (differences in stress between the
defective and plene forms) or to the scribal level (differentiation between
words that were alone and those that had affixes).
In section 12 of Chapter One the author notices a very special feature
of the Masoretic spelling. Certain words are spelled consistently in a
certain way, a situation that is quite unusual within the inconsistent
Masoretic practice. Thus the following words are always spelled
defectively: :x., ~x:, :, ::, ::x. The latter three cases are described
by Barr as a lexically selective convention (p. 36); the first two are
described as possibly reflecting a different pronunciation.
The author also suggests that the book in MT, above all else, should
be considered as the basic unit for spelling analysis. After all, spelling
pertains to scribal activity, and not to the level of composition of books
or of their constituting layers. In principle, we would thus expect books
to be more or less homogeneous in their spelling practices. Thus the
ancient songs in the Torah and the surrounding chapters, written at a
later time, are expected to reflect the same spelling patterns. Indeed, the
ancient song of Deborah contains various plene spellings in words in
which a shorter spelling would be possible and even normal (p. 37).
Barr presents very interesting insights into the nature of the spelling
patterns of the Torah which are more substantial than generalizations
previously made in the literature on the subject. It is usually said that the
Torah has more short spellings than the other (later) books, but Barr
points out that this characterization is imprecise: the spelling of the
Torah oscillates between full and defective where other books present a
full spelling only. Short spellings are actually a minority within the
Torah as a whole (pp. 3943), but they do abound in Exodus.
After these preliminary deliberations the author reaches the main
body of evidence (Chapter Two: The Central Groups of Evidence)
comprising the bulk of the book. In 123 pages, the author discusses 21
categories of variable spellings, especially, those which seem to yield
important clues for the understanding of biblical spelling in general (p.
44). In the course of the analysis, concepts are employed which have
been introduced in the first chapter; the material is significant, though
not exhaustive, and it is meant to lead to general conclusions on the
spelling. The basic pattern of analysis in this chapter is descriptive, but
REVIEW OF BARR, VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 5
the common denominator of the examples is that a certain pattern
behind the spelling practices can be determined. In spite of the basic
problems in the analysis of the Masoretic spelling, patterns can be
recognized, and these present an important contribution by Barr. He
does not say how often his findings agree with those of the Masoretes,
such as in Elias Levitas Massoreth ha-Massoreth, for some rules had
already been detected by them. Often the author simply presents the
material, but more frequently it is accompanied by an explanation of the
variable spellings, usually in the realm of linguistic features.
Such is the case with the different spellings of the masculine plural
ending -im, which presents a special type of affix effect in which often
the final yod is lacking, while the internal one is written (p. 47). This
situation is explained by the assumption of different stress patterns. The
spelling :::~ presents the stress on the ultimate syllable, while :::~
(the majority spelling for this word, yet a minority spelling for the
pattern as a whole) reflects the penultimate stress. This suggestion is
presented with all due caution.
A linguistic explanation has also been attached to several of the
occurrences of the qatol pattern. Most of the words of this pattern are
spelled in different ways, though mainly plene. In the Torah, the affix
effect is also visible (pp. 534). Linguistically interesting is a small
group of words belonging to the same pattern which are never spelled
plene: ::, ~:., :~ and probably also ::. (with one exception: 2 Chr 4:2).
These cases are not explained as lexically determined. Rather, Barr
prefers to see in them a different pattern (qatal): they did not have the
long vowel which could produce long spellings, but an a vowel or a
short u vowel, also present in . : ~ , etc.
The different spelling patterns of the qal participle qotel, qot elet, etc.,
written either with or without waw are discussed as well. Defective
forms are four times more frequent in MT than full forms. There are,
however, words that go against this trend. Thus ::: is more frequently
full than the other words, probably because of a possible conflict
between :: and :: . The distribution pattern differs from word to word,
so that the behavior of individual words (lexicalization [p. 80]) has to
be taken into consideration together with the general trend. Beyond the
behavior of individual words, Barr suggests a linguistic solution for the
different spelling patterns. He cautiously surmises (p. 77) that the
Canaanite sound shift from a to o had not yet taken uniform effect in
Hebrew. Therefore some participles were actually of the pattern qatel
and qat il and accordingly spelled without waw. These spellings thus
reflect a different linguistic reality, which was later misunderstood by
6 CHAPTER ONE
the Masoretes as reflecting qot el. But Barr immediately adds: Yet it is
difficult to suppose that the shift in question was still incomplete as late
as this hypothesis would demand. Nor would it easily explain why so
many participles, even in late books, are defective. (p. 77). Another
possible explanation of the defective spellings is that many verbs were at
a certain time of the stative type, that is : x instead of : : x. But the issue
cannot really be decided. Possibly there nevertheless existed a scribal
tradition that made the scribes decide to prefer plene forms for nouns and
defective forms for verbal forms. Since, however, this solution is
applicable only to a certain percentage of the evidence, Barr cannot form
a conclusion in any one direction.
The yod of the hiphil is not mandatory, or, in other words, hiphil
forms are either defective or full. The defective forms are explained as
possible remnants of a different pronunciation, viz., with an a instead of
with an i (pp. 845).
Explanations along these lines abound in the book. But Barr did not
start his investigations with a linguistic theory in mind. In his words,
My main concern is not to discover an explanation of how the biblical
spelling patterns arose but to describe what these patterns are: in that
sense the work starts out by being descriptive rather than historical (p.
3). However correct these words, which introduce the present work,
were when the author embarked upon his research, it would appear that
as the research continued, he found himself opting more and more for a
historical-linguistic solution. Thus Barrs real approach is better reflected
in those introductory words in which he realizes with some surprise that
he actually accepts a historical approach:
Nevertheless I must say that, having started off in this rather non-
historical direction, I found in the course of my studies that the
evidence gradually led me round to a more historical assessment, and
that a study based on the Masoretic patterns alone led to more
historical and developmental suggestions than I had originally
thought likely, or wished [my italics, E. T.]. This is how it should be:
the examination of the patterns of the basic body of evidence, the
traditional biblical text, should provide a strengthening of the base for
historical understanding (p. 4).
Therefore, in actual fact the authors approach, not his results, is not as
different from that of CrossFreedman as he would have liked it to be.
In several other issues, Barr provided a historical-linguistic
explanation as well. All these pertain to the evidence provided in
Chapter Two (The Central Groups of Evidence), the longest chapter in
the book. In addition to the examples mentioned above, this explanation
REVIEW OF BARR, VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 7
pertains to the defective spellings of the waw consecutive of the perfect
(pp. 97103), the o vowel of the imperfect qal in triliteral verbs (pp. 1037)
and the second person masculine termination -ta and -ka (pp. 11427). In
a long discussion, the author suggests that the plene writings of this type
reflect an older style which had been reduced in numbers in the later
history of the text (p. 125). In this case, a different pronunciation is
assumed. Barr always expresses his views with due caution and
sometimes he almost rejects the historical solution he suggested himself;
see, for example, his analysis of a yod before suffixes (::x, etc.) on p.
137.
Barrs lengthy analysis of select patterns of variable spellings is but
one aspect of this book. In Chapter Three, he turns to a different type of
evidence, viz., Parallels and Combinations. Some of these data are
presented in the conventional comparative way, while other data present
a new approach. The material is analyzed from a completely different
angle: while Chapter Two was concerned with detecting rules behind the
Masoretic spelling, Chapter Three describes only a few such rules, while
stressing its unsystematic character.
In this chapter, the author compares the spelling patterns of parallel
sections in the Bible, viz., Chronicles // Samuel-Kings, Exodus 2530 //
3540, and 2 Samuel 22 // Psalm 18. There are various ways of looking
at the material, and the author is especially intrigued by the shorter
spellings in Chronicles. That book is obviously later than SamuelKings,
and in accordance with the history of the development of the spelling
procedures, a greater number of full spellings are expected in that book.
This is indeed the case, but the situation is somewhat more complicated,
as Chronicles sometimes has a shorter spelling. Since it is not logical that
the author or scribe of this book would have inserted these shorter
spellings, another type of solution should be attempted. In Barrs
formulation:
The hypothesis that, where parallel texts exist, they derived from an
earlier form of the text that was generally shorter, and that was
thereafter amplified in slightly different ways, and haphazardly
rather than systematically, is the simplest explanation, and gives us
means to understand the essential problem, namely the fact that the
existing texts seem, in numerous individual cases, to go against their
own dominant tendencies (p. 170).
This assumption is worked out in detail for Chronicles and its sources on
pp. 17882. A similar explanation is applied to a comparison of the two
Exodus texts. Their spelling practices display a large amount of
agreement, and in addition the two texts differ, as tabulated on pp. 174
8 CHAPTER ONE
5. Both of the texts were derived from an earlier text that was
dominantly short, and . . . both of them independently added a certain
number of waws and yods, both of them inconsistently and haphazardly
(p. 177). Although in this section the author discusses some select
patterns, he describes the spelling practices in the traditional way, that is,
assuming a development from a defective to a full spelling. At the same
time there is room for exceptions, since the author has an explanation for
defective spellings in Chronicles that, as far as I know, is novel (see the
description above). He also describes a model for the possible distinction
between layers of spelling within Chronicles based on certain literary
assumptions.
In another section of this chapter, pp. 1824, which deals with
combinations of variable spellings, the author treats the parallel data
as he did in Chapter Two, viz., word by word. The different patterns of
behavior of several combinations of words in the parallel sections are
studied in this section.
The final chapter, Four, deals with Interpretation and Implications,
summarizing the authors views on the rationale of the spelling of MT.
The suggestion that the variable spellings should be explained as simply
inconsistent (Bergstrsser, Bauer-Leander) is not acceptable to Barr. Nor
does he accept a suggestion of Rahlfs (1916) that the matres lectionis have
been added in order to overcome ambiguity. As counter arguments to
the latter view, Barr provides several examples of ambiguous words in
which scribes could easily have added a letter in order to remove an
ambiguity in the text, but refrained from doing so (note e.g. the two
occurrences of :: in Num 9:22, of which the first one is vocalized as
yamim and the second one as yomayim). At the same time, vowel letters
were inserted in words that without them would not have been
ambiguous (e.g., c::). As a further argument against this view, the
author refers to the affix effect described above. Barr rightly claims: If
yods or waws were put there in order to assist identification and reduce
ambiguity, why were they so very often removed again as soon as the
words in question became plural or had a pronoun suffix or even a
definite article? (p. 189). He also notes that the massive use of defective
spelling in the Bible (p. 190) can only imply that the avoidance of
ambiguity was not a major factor behind the spelling practices.
The solution accepted by Barr is of a different nature. Spelling varied
because the scribes liked it to vary . . . In other words, biblical
spelling . . . is a kind of art form. It is somewhat comparable to
calligraphy (p. 194). The distinction between conscious and unconscious
is very important in this regard. Some variations will have been made
REVIEW OF BARR, VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 9
unconsciously, but many of them were conscious. For example, there are
many variable spellings fitting patterns that probably existed in the
Hebrew language in the pre-Masoretic period (p. 195). The
aforementioned words which show no variable spelling (:x., ::x, etc.)
also show a design behind the spelling patterns. There are also very clear
patterns of differences between the books. Accepted spellings changed
from time to time, such as the two major spellings for the name of David,
and this, too, shows an overall design. Usually the earlier works were
more defective than the later ones, but books were revised, copied, and
recopied so that the usual chronological criteria do not hold. All these
factors, then, explain the different spelling patterns, but at the same time
they show a conscious procedure behind the spelling habits.
At the same time, Barr makes some suggestions with regard to the
chronological background of the Masoretic spelling. As remarked, there
is no necessary relation between the time of composition of the books
and the spelling of the copies included in MT. Grosso modo, Barr
considers the period between 400 and 100 BCE as the time of origin of the
spelling practices of MT. The author did not find evidence for the
concept of archaizing (p. 203).
In his final remarks, Barr draws together the different observations
gathered in the course of his research. There is but one orthographic
system reflected in MT. Within that system, there were often different
options that could be chosen, each as valid as the other. Barr thus talks
about one orthography, which included a zone of optional spelling (p.
205). This zone included the variable spellings.
Barr appends a few notes (pp. 20911) about the practical
consequences of his research. He suggests that grammars should discuss
spelling patterns, that a full-scale grammar and concordance of the
spellings of MT should be written, and finally that the commentators of
individual books should pay special attention to spelling patterns. In an
appendix (pp. 21215), Barr describes a specimen profile of one book:
the Psalms.
We now turn to some further matters of evaluation.
Every reader of the book will be impressed by its thoroughness,
novelty, lucidity and Barrs pleasant way of discussing the different
options. Scholars who think that these minutiae are unimportant are
mistaken, as Barr has shown that they may pertain to many aspects of
biblical studies: the date of composition and copying of the biblical
books and textual as well as linguistic analysis. For the insider, this book
can be read as a novel which one reads in one sitting, as the reviewer has
done. It is actually quite surprising that a book like this has not been
10 CHAPTER ONE
written earlier, since so many studies have been written which should
actually have been preceded by a monograph like the present one.
Probably the magnitude of such an undertaking prevented others from
embarking upon research of this kind. Others may have thought that the
main facts are actually known, and yet others may have thought that the
inconsistency of MT makes such research impossible. Hence, scholars
have had to wait for the novel insights, wide knowledge and patience of
J. Barr who has applied to the material new categories of thinking, as
outlined in the beginning of this review. Some of these run parallel to
work carried out independently by Andersen and Forbes in their
aforementioned work, but equally often the two studies go in different
directions. Barr leads us to the period of the writing of the proto-
Masoretic texts, although he does not elaborate on this issue. The book
provides much food for thought on the background on the different
spelling patterns in MT as well as between the different books. And
finally, attempts are madeand this is quite novel, as far as I knowto
connect the different spelling habits with practices of pronunciation and
language. Barr suggests that many of the phenomena described do not
reflect different spelling practices, but different linguistic habits.
One of the important insights of Barr is to look beyond the mere
statistics of spelling patterns. General statistics of plene and defective
spellings are of limited value. Of more relevance are statistics of certain
patterns, such as the endings -im and -ot, the participle and the hiphil,
but even here certain words go against the usual practice. Examples of
these have been given above. These select words, whose spelling goes its
own way, make the study of this topic particularly interesting.
In our evaluation of this study, we first turn to the textual base of the
investigations, which is the Leningrad codex with some exceptions (see
above). According to Barr, the differences between the medieval sources
are negligible, but at the same time the reader would like to know which
text is actually quoted throughout the work. The implication of a
statement on p. 7 seems to be that the textual base for the research is a
combination of A and L (mentioned in this sequence). But on p. 19, the
author says that the spellings in the diagrams are generally those of
BHS, following the Leningrad Codex. Are we to assume that in those
cases in which a spelling other than that of BHS (L) is mentioned, it is the
spelling of the Aleppo codex? Probably not. The reader should realize
that this detail is of minor significance, since the number of consonantal
differences between L and A is small, but nevertheless he should have
more clarity about the textual base of the figures. We should probably
assume that the textual base is always the BHS (not always identical with
REVIEW OF BARR, VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 11
L!) with the exception of those cases for which codex L is mentioned
explicitly (see however Barrs preference for A on p. 210). These
exceptions could easily be traced with the aid of the index, and if this
assumption that BHS is the base is correct, the reader has more clarity
with regard to the textual base of Barrs investigations. And to what
extent has Dothans edition of codex L been used? Mandelkerns
concordance does not serve as a base for these investigations, although
Barr has used this tool in order to locate the different words. On the
whole, he prefers this concordance to other tools (p. 210), but the reason
is not stated. Lisowskis concordance, which is based on the text of BH,
could have brought the author closer to that source (I do not know how
precise this concordance is). Often Barr states (for examples, see the
index s.v. Mandelkern) that the data in Mandelkern differ in details from
BHS. This is not surprising since the textual base for that concordance
(Biblia Rabbinica, the edition of Baer, and other sources) differs from BHS,
but the mentioning of these details will be useful to the readers, many of
whom use Mandelkern.
The reason for the choice of codex L is not mentioned. One can easily
conjecture that this manuscript is chosen as the best complete
representative of the Ben-Asher tradition. However, that choice pertains
to matters of vocalization and Masorah, and not necessarily to its
consonants. The choice is actually not discussed. Possibly another source
would have presented us with a better base for an investigation of the
consonantal Masoretic tradition. It is not impossible that the detailed
research carried out by Menahem Cohen on subgroups within the
Masoretic manuscripts (for some references, see Barrs bibliography)
would lead to the choice of another manuscript or even of two or more
manuscripts. Even if such a different choice was made, the contents of
the tables would not differ from the present ones by more than 35
percent, that is the margin which Barr is willing to accept according to
the aforementioned quote from p. 6. But here and there an additional
block might be recognized and, conversely, the assumption of a spelling
block might sometimes have to be cancelled.
There is one further issue pertaining to the textual base for the
research performed. It is never fair to expect from authors who
performed so much research to point to other areas that should have
been researched as well, but it seems that at least some guidelines or
sample studies are needed in the area of the ancient scrolls. The spelling
patterns of MT were not created in the Middle Ages. The only reason
why the earliest medieval manuscripts are studied is that they form the
best extant complete source for the study of early orthographic patterns.
12 CHAPTER ONE
After all, the Masoretic manuscripts have been transmitted very carefully
so that they are probably an excellent base for the study of earlier
practices. The ancient scrolls belonging to the same (proto-)Masoretic
family reflect an almost identical consonantal text (see chapter 12*)
especially the Judean Desert scrolls from sites other than Qumran. If
differences between codices L and A are taken into consideration, why
should one disregard much earlier, and hence better, representatives of
the same Masoretic family from Masada, Murabbaat, and Nahal Hever,
and also Qumran? Sample studies of ancient scrolls could indicate
possible trends at an earlier period. This pertains to such well-preserved
texts as 1QIsa
b
, the Minor Prophets scroll from Nahal Hever, and several
of the Masada texts. For example, the unusual plene spelling ::~. in the
MT of Lev 26:42 and Jeremiah (30:18; 33:26; 46:27; 51:19 [note also ten
defective spellings in that book]) is also found in other places in 4QJer
c

(30:7; 31:7, 11 [?], 18; other instances are not known because of its
fragmentary status); the defective spelling occurs 345 times in MT. The
exact status of the spelling of this name in 4QJer
c
is of course not clear,
but this and similar data are very relevant to the discussion on p. 162 of
the book because they antedate the medieval manuscripts by at least one
millennium. It should be stressed once again that I do not refer to the
relevance of any earlier text; I refer only to those texts from the Judean
Desert, which according to the scholarly consensus belong to the (proto)-
Masoretic group (family). See further chapter 10* below.
We now turn to the samples provided, their description, and the
accompanying theories in Chapters One and Two. The existence of the
affix effect previously described as the avoidance of plene spellings in
two successive syllables, has certainly been established before Barr and
by Barr himself, but since the author presents special aspects of this
phenomenon, our only source of information is provided by the
examples given, and these are sometimes problematic. The data
provided are far from exhaustive for completeness was not the authors
intention. Nevertheless enough relevant material is provided. No
information is hidden, but the reader should always read the samples
carefully. Often they do not pertain to the Bible as a whole, but to certain
books only, or only to a certain form of the noun (absolute or construct
only), often in certain books only. Thus figure 9, mentioned above,
quotes all cases in the Torah of l
e
olam (forever) and it pertains to the
affix effect. The author notes that there are some 205 instances of olam
written plene in MT. He then continues to say: But, when preceded by l
e
-
(not ~.), in the familiar phrase l
e
olam for ever, this proportion changes
sharply: within the Torah we have the defective, ::.:, ten times, and the
REVIEW OF BARR, VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 13
plene :::.: only twice . . . After the table, the author mentions ::.:: in
Isa 57:11 in a similarly short spelling. However, the mentioning of this
one example is problematic since the great majority of the instances of
this word are spelled plene (17x, not mentioned by Barr). Likewise, ::.,
with the article, is mentioned as an example for the affix effect. But the
latter case actually runs counter to the authors claim, since it is
represented only in two cases with the short spelling out of about a
dozen. Also the massive information about olam with l
e
, not mentioned
by the author, goes against his rule. That is, the great majority of the
spellings of l
e
olam are actually plene, to be precise 175 times in all the
books of the Bible, most of them in Psalms, as against a mere seven
defective spellings in 1 Kings (4 x) and Psalms (3 x). In spite of all this,
the information in figure 9 is basically correct, as it pertains only to the
Torah, where the basic information is not contradicted, but the
information concerning the other books is imprecise, and this may have
some repercussions for the situation in the Torah as well.
The preceding example may or may not render the case of the affix
effect less convincing. Actually Barr does not say in so many words
whether the affix effect is found throughout the Bible or merely in a
certain unit, in this case the Torah. If, by default, one believes that the
affix effect is found in all of the Bible, one would have to admit that
the data are less convincing, for they pertain mainly to the Torah with
contrary evidence from the other books. On the whole, in our view the
case would be stronger if one should claim that the phenomenon is
particularly discernable in a given book and if its presence there is well
demonstrable. But one does not know whether this is Barrs intention for,
in the discussion in Chapter Two, reference to the affix effect also
pertains to books other than the Torah.
The examples given for the affix effect are not always convincing, in
my view. As one of the examples of the affix effect, the author
mentions on p. 27 ~::., which when preceded by a lamed is written
defectively (~:.:). For this phenomenon, Barr quotes twelve examples,
which in normal conditions would be convincing, but when
remembering that there are at least two hundred instances of the plene
writing of this word (~::.:), not mentioned on p. 27, one wonders
whether the example is at all valid. The data mentioned by Barr thus
refer to a minority of the instances; how can we use them as proof for an
assumption that is contradicted by the bulk of the evidence?
The numbers of the defective spellings of qol deriving from the affix
effect as listed on p. 29 are correct, but they form a small minority. But
Barr adds an important observation: . . . there is not a single case of the
14 CHAPTER ONE
defective spelling :~ except where there is an affix conjoined with the
noun.
The author thus does not stress the statistical data, but he follows a
different type of logic, spelled out with regard to qol, and which has
much to be commended. According to that logic it is not the number of
defective affixed forms that count, but the fact that these defective forms
occur mainly with affixes and often in unexpected places, such as in a
late book. The addition of affixes, so the argument goes, influenced the
scribe to write the word defectively, even if this happened in a small
number of cases only. In our view, however, this position, logical as it
may seem to be, can only be upheld by strong evidence relating either to
a given word or morphological pattern or to a given biblical book.
Another example mentioned in favor of the present formulation of the
affix effect is qadosh, mainly spelled plene as ::~~but why is this
example mentioned in this chapter? What is the affix effect here? The
author notes . . . with the article this adjective is always ::~~ plene . . .
(p. 27).
On pp. 289, the author mentions several examples of words that are
plene in their construct forms, as opposed to their defective absolute
forms, e.g. the construct :x as opposed to the absolute x, in the Torah
only (as opposed to all other books in which only the plene forms occur).
But here, Barr notes, the affix effect works in the opposite direction,
and one wonders whether these data actually do not weaken the initial
assumption.
There certainly is evidence for some form or other of the affix effect,
which has been recognized also before Barr, but possibly it was
operational only for certain scribes in certain cases. Barr shows (pp. 256)
that the phenomenon which previously has been described as the
avoidance of plene spelling in two successive syllables, is imprecise and
not warranted by the data. Instead, he provides a better description of
the evidence. But, it seems to us, there remain some open questions.
Thus the existence of the affix effect in all of the books has not been
established, and it is not clear whether this was Barrs intention. The case
made would have been stronger if we could say that in a certain book or
group of books the affix effect is used exclusively, and not
contradicted by negative evidence. An alternative explanation could be
that the affix effect would be operational in all of MT for certain words
only, so that negative evidence relating to other words would not be
relevant.
A similar consideration of a general nature pertains to a concept
introduced by Barr, viz., that of block spellings as opposed to rapid
REVIEW OF BARR, VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 15
alternation. According to Barr, the combination of block spellings and
rapid alternation is one of the characteristic features of the Masoretic
spelling system. Examples are given from both the Torah and the
historical books. The data speak for themselves, and they are impressive.
But the issue at stake, in my mind, is the question to what extent the
described phenomena were intentional. For Barr, they probably reflect a
conscious process, since he speaks about rapid alternation and in various
places he describes the spelling as a conscious process. Although Barr
does not say so in so many words, the assumption behind his description
seems to be that someone created the alternation between block spellings
and rapid alternation. But in order to prove this point much more
evidence needs to be adduced, in my view. The examples themselves are
not numerous enough. Alternatively, can one point to a certain book or
group of books in which the block spelling is a clear-cut phenomenon?
Furthermore, what is the logic behind the presumed alternation? After
all, if the suggested view cannot be demonstrated convincingly, we may
have to return to the old-fashioned view that inconsistency is at stake.
Simple inconsistency is another way of formulating the combination of
block spellings and rapid alternation. But inconsistency cannot be
proven. It is an assumption in itself.
This leads to even more general thoughts about the book under
review. In the two main sections of the work, Barr discusses different
aspects of the Masoretic spelling by approaching the evidence from
different angles. In the greater part of the book (Chapters One and Two),
the author discusses individual patterns of spellings, pointing out time
and again the reasons for the variable spellings. The discussion in the
second part (Chapter Three), on the other hand, stresses the
unsystematic nature of that spelling on the basis of an analysis of parallel
sections. The haphazard nature of the spelling is stressed especially in
the concluding section (see below). In other words, the implication of
Chapters One and Two actually differs from that of Chapter Three. Barr
is aware of this, and he always phrases his thoughts carefully. But one
wonders whether the results of the second part of the book are
sufficiently taken into consideration in its first part. In his general
conclusions, Barr writes:
For the obvious character of biblical spelling is its haphazardness.
Consistency is at a discount, and variation at a premium. As we have
repeatedly observed and insisted, the variations run across all books,
all sources, all periods. Exceptions are not exceptional but are the
normal thing (pp. 2023).
16 CHAPTER ONE
But if this is the case, should this perception not influence the
concepts and analysis developed in the first part of the book as well? In
other words, if variation is the rule (spelling varied because the scribes
liked it to vary [p. 194]), can the concepts of block spelling and rapid
alternation as conscious procedures be maintained, especially since the
examples are not clear-cut? Or would it be better to simply talk about
various forms of inconsistency? And does the very fact of the
inconsistency not cast any doubts on some of the evidence explained
otherwise in Chapters One and Two? After all, the evidence is not
always convincing (see also above). Would it not be better to turn to an
assumption of inconsistency?
This is a very important study. Barr has discovered several spelling
features and he offered attractive suggestions for single phenomena and
lexemes. Accordingly, the main question for discussion is not the validity
of these single phenomena and spelling patterns for certain lexemes, but
the validity of the generalizations behind the description of these single
phenomena. Can the overall explanations of Barr (alternation of block
spelling and rapid alternation, the special nature of the affix effect) be
maintained? Barr has taught us not to look at mere statistics, but to
consider general trends and to look separately at the words behind these
statistics. Accordingly, one can probably accommodate both an
assumption of inconsistency in general and the consistent behavior of
certain words and patterns. In a way, however, judgment should be
delayed until each of the books of MT is discussed separately and
thoroughly.
These doubts and precautions beyond the already cautious approach
of Barr do cast further doubts on the validity of the linguistic-historical
explanations of the spelling practices so often suggested in this work
(e.g., the assumption of a pattern qat al behind the defective spellings of
the Masoretic qatol, see above). If inconsistency is the rule for MT, rather
than the exception, why can we not ascribe many of these unusual
spellings to the inconsistencies of scribes, rather than to a different
linguistic reality? Scribes of individual books had their idiosyncrasies
(this is also visible in MT as a whole; see the consistently defective
spellings of e.g., ~x:, :, :x.), and why should other idiosyncrasies not
be ascribed to the same scribes rather than to a different linguistic
reality? Do we have to assume different pronunciation patterns for the
hiphil, for the participle, and for the plural formations -im and -ot if we
can equally well work with the assumption of scribal conventions and
(in)consistency? Besides, these linguistic explanations are ascribed to
spellings found in all of MT, and Barr is aware of the fact that the
REVIEW OF BARR, VARIABLE SPELLINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 17
different linguistic reality so often mentioned in the book would have to
be assumed for quite a long period and at quite a late stage of the
language.
Although there remain some open questions, they do not detract from
the fact that this is a masterly study, which will remain a basic work for
the study of the Masoretic spelling for many years to come.





CHAPTER TWO

DEUTERONOMY 12 AND 11QTEMPLE
A
LIILIII:
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS

Both Deuteronomy and 11QTemple
a
are law codes. The former forms the
base for a great part of the latter, thus facilitating their comparison. In
such a contrastive comparison, the different approaches of the two codes
are easily recognized.
1.
Deuteronomy 1226 contains a law code of a special type. It does not
merely record laws, but also enjoins the audience to abide by them. In
order to achieve this purpose, the author employs various devices.
Incentives for obeying and punishments for disobeying the law are
specified. The author frequently repeats himself, often with identical
wording, in order to emphasize the content. Some portions of the legal
sections of Deuteronomy are, in fact, more in the nature of legislative
sermons than a legal code.
This is the case with chapter 12, the beginning of the legal code. It
may safely be asserted that this chapter, the content of which carries a
central message within Deuteronomy, would have been considerably
shorter had it been confined to merely legislative aspects. Indeed, the
legal prescriptions of the chapter can be summarized in a few sentences,
while the remainder of the chapter should be regarded as a legal
sermon (comprising 28 verses).
The legal prescriptions of this chapter may be summarized as:
a. All worship must be centralized at one chosen place;
b. Non-sacrificial slaughter is permitted far from the chosen place.
The lengthiness of the chapter derives not only from the sermons
surrounding the legal prescriptions, but also from its complicated
literary history, as its present form reflects two compositional layers, viz.
1: (a) 11:31
1
12:7; (b) 12:8-12 (14); 2: (b) 12:13 (15)-19; (a) 12:20-28. For our

1
The subject matter of chapter 12 starts at 11:31.

2 CHAPTER TWO

present purpose, we need not insist on any specific theory on the growth
of this chapter, but its repetitive nature is beyond doubt. Thus, the
regulation that all worship was to be centralized in one place is phrased
three times (vv 5, 11, 14) and the allowing of non-sacrificial slaughter
beyond the chosen place is repeated twice in great detail (vv 15-16; 20-
24).
The two regulations of chapter 12 are phrased in such a way that it
may be suspected that they once formed two separate sources. Over the
course of time, the original regulation regarding the centralization of
worship was found too difficult and impractical, so a second layer was
added enabling those who were far from the chosen city to eat meat
without sacrifice.
2
A tension exists between the two regulations, not
because the second one severely limits the force of the first oneafter all,
that was the purpose of the lawbut because the first one (12:1-12 [14])
is phrased in strong terms and leaves no opening for the possibility of
the second one. The spirit in which the first regulation is written
contradicts the very existence of a mitigating law such as the second one.
Thus, the two regulations apparently reflect two different periods.
2.
From col. LI 11 onwards, 11QT
a
adduces large sections of the text of Deut
16:18ff., together with other laws from the Torah, ordered according to
the chapter sequence in Deuteronomy, but also organized topically
within that arrangement. This topical arrangement involves various
digressions, inter alia the text of Deuteronomy 12. The first regulation of
that chapter is quoted very briefly, not in the absolute terms of the
biblical text (Deut 12:1-12 [14]), but integrating the second, mitigating,
regulation:

3
yrwhf z[w hw rw jbzt awl 13
wtb a yk ymy twl rd ydqml bwrq hkyr[ lwkb 14
htlkaw yml jbz wa hlw[ wtwa tw[l wnjbzt ydqm 15
wyl[ ym wl rjba ra wqmb ynpl htjmw 16

2
The secondary nature of this second regulation can be recognized by a comparison
with other chapters containing a similar formulation to that in 12:20-21. See the second
layer of the law of the tithe (14:24ff.), enabling people far from the chosen city to sell the
tithe for money to be spent in the chosen city. Likewise, a second layer in the law of the
cities of refuge mentions three additional cities (19:8-10) to the three mentioned earlier
(19:7). The additional cities were to be instituted upon the expansion of the country (19:8).
3
Cf. also the parallel law in Lev 17:3.
DEUTERONOMY 12 AND 11QTEMPLE
A
LIILIII 3
A contrastive analysis of Deuteronomy 12 and 11QT
a
is instructive for
our understanding of both compositions:
a. 11QT
a
, as expected, treats the two regulations presented twice in of
Deuteronomy 12, as one entity.
b. The centralization of the cult, described in detail in Deut 12:1-12
(14) and Leviticus 17 (cf. n. 3), has been reduced to a mere four lines in
11QTemple. The author of that scroll was thus guided by the correct
intuition that the basic message of Deut 12:1-12 (14) was very short and
that the bulk of that pericope was not needed in a legislative
composition. Our literary understanding of the nature of this chapter is
thus corroborated by 11QT
a
.
c. The biblical law does not specify how far removed the Israelite has
to be from the chosen city (cf. Deut 12:21) in order to practice non-
sacrificial slaughter. This problem is solved in 11QT
a
LII 14, which
designates this distance as three days walk.
4
The contrastive analysis
thus shows that the biblical law lacked certain elements for its practical
implementation.
d. 11QT
a
infers from the biblical text that the inhabitants of the region
close to the Temple are not allowed to eat non-sacrificial meat. This
seems to be the most logical inference from the text, which is also
accepted by the Qaraites, but not by rabbinic Judaism.
The author of 11QT
a
was guided by a literary feeling that often runs
parallel to that of modern critical scholars, as illustrated by his treatment
of the second regulation in Deuteronomy 12, the sanctioning of non-
sacrificial meat outside the chosen city. The subject of the text lost
between cols. LII 21 and LIII 1 is not known, but the first eight lines of
col. LIII run parallel to Deut 12:20-25, with which they can be aligned in
parallel columns:

4
For a similar solution in the case of the tithe, see 11QT
a
XLIII 1213.
4 CHAPTER TWO

11QTemple
a
LIII 28 MT
r]b lwkal hkpn htw[a yk rb lkal pn hwat yk 20
r]ObO lkawt [hkpn twa lwkb rb lkat pn twa lkb
rjby ra wqmh rmm qjry yk 21
wm wl yhla h
hkyrqbmw hknawxm hO [tj]b( [zw naxmw rqbm tjbzw
hkl ta ra ytkrbk l h tn ra
tywx rak
hkyr[b htlkaw yr[b tlkaw
pn twa lkb
lyah taw ybxh ta lkay rak a 22
wnlkat k
lyakw ybxk wydjy hkb amfhw rwhfh w wnlkay wdjy rwhfhw amfh

5
dh lwka ytlbl qzj qr dh lka ytlbl qzj qr 23
pnh awh dh yk pnh awh dh yk
rbh [ pnh ta lkawt a wlw rbh [ pnh lkat alw
wnlkat al 24
(Lev 17:13) rp[b wtyskw ymk wnkpwt rah l[ ymk wnkpt rah l[
wnlkat al 25
lw[ d[ hkyrja hkynblw hkl
6
(bfwy) bfyy [ml yrja ynblw l bfyy [ml
ynpl bwfhw ryh hty[w h yny[b ryh h[t yk
hkyhwla h yna
The content of this regulation appears twice in Deuteronomy (12:15-
19 and 12:20-28), but only once in 11QT
a
, according to its second
formulation (Deut 12:20-28). In that rewritten text, a phrase from the first
formulation of the law is incorporated (hkl ta ra ytkrbk, parallel to
Deut 12:21 l h tn ra, but derived from Deut 12:15).
It is remarkable, as we have stated, how 11QT
a
succeeded in
condensing and omitting many of the repetitions in the biblical text:
i. The law in vv 20-28 is prefaced by two introductions: (20) h byjry yk
l rbd rak lbg ta yhla and (21) wl yhla h rjby ra wqmh mm qjry yk
wm, while the preserved part of 11QT
a
col. LIII has left no remnant of
an introduction to the law. However, the text of the scroll omits the first
part of Deut 12:21 ( wm . . . qjry yk), with v 21b appearing immediately
after v 20. It is therefore safe to assume that the section was introduced

5
11QT
a
adduces here the text that runs parallel to v 24 and to Lev 17:13.
6
Yadins reading.
DEUTERONOMY 12 AND 11QTEMPLE
A
LIILIII 5
by one prefatory phrase only: htrmaw hkl ytrbd rak hklwbg ta byjra yk]
wgw htw[a yk rb hlkwa.
7

ii. Several phrases have been omitted in 11QT
a
because they merely
repeat other phrases in the immediate context:
(21) pn twa lkb (implied in line 2 hkpn htw[a yk])
(22) lyah taw ybxh ta lkay rak a (abbreviated in the next phrase to
lyakw ybxk)
(22) wnlkat k, (24) wnlkat al, (25) wnlkat al (redundant repetitions).
This contrastive analysis of Deuteronomy 12 and 11QT
a
LIILIII
brings to the fore the differences in their approaches. 11QT
a
presents a
more practical approach to the biblical law than Deuteronomy 12. A
similar difference is visible in a contrastive analysis of Lev 23:27-29 and
11QT
a
XXV 1012.
8



7
The immediate joining of two introductory phrases as suggested by Yadin (ta byjra yk
. . . hkmm qjry ykw . . . hklwbg) is inconsistent with the avoidance of repetition in this section.
Yadins suggestion may have been guided by the reading of a single letter [hkmm] q[jry] in
line 1, but that letter is questionable.
8
For other aspects of the editorial technique of 11QT
a
, see S. A. Kaufman, The Temple
Scroll and Higher Criticism, HUCA 53 (1982) 2943; P. R. Callaway, Source Criticism of
the Temple Scroll, RevQ 12 (19851986) 21322; G. Brin, Concerning Some of the Uses of
the Bible in the Temple Scroll, RevQ 12 (1987) 51928.




CHAPTER THREE

4QREWORKED PENTATEUCH: A SYNOPSIS OF ITS CONTENTS

The reconstructed text of 4QReworked Pentateuch (previously:
4QPentateuchal Paraphrase or 4QPP) is one of the longest texts found at
Qumran, with the complete scroll measuring 2227 meters.
1
A large
amount of text has been preserved in many fragments that come from
the five extant manuscripts of this text. Four manuscripts were published
in DJD XIII, while a fifth one was published earlier as 4Q158.
2
In a
previous publication
3
I argued that this manuscript belongs to the same
text as 4Q364367.
4
The five manuscripts of this composition are thus
4Q158 = 4QRP
a
, 4Q364 = 4QRP
b
, 4Q365 = 4QRP
c
, 4Q366 = 4QRP
d
, and
4Q367 = 4QRP
e
.
Subsequent to the publication of 4QRP, I have come to realize that this
text needs to be reclassified as a biblical manuscript.
5

The text of 4QRP probably contained the complete Torah, together
with some short and long exegetical additions. Lacking is evidence for
the first twenty chapters of Genesis,
6
the first ten chapters of Leviticus,
Numbers 1826, and Deuteronomy 2134. There is no intrinsic reason to
believe that any of these segments would have been lacking from 4QRP,
although it is not impossible that this would have been the case for the
beginning and/or final chapters of the Torah.
The more substantial exegetical additions are listed according to the
five different manuscripts of 4QRP, with their fragment numbers:


1
See E. Tov and S. A. White, DJD XIII, 187352, esp. 192.
2
J. Allegro published 4Q158 in DJD V as Biblical Paraphrase.
3
E. Tov, The Textual Status of 4Q364367 (4QRP), in Trebolle, Madrid Qumran
Congress, 4382. See further DJD XIII, 19091.
4
When the texts were originally assigned to editors in the 1950s, J. Allegro received
4Q158 while 4Q364367 were allotted to J. Strugnell. Neither scholar realized the close
connection between the two texts.
5
See the end of chapter 20*.
6
See, however, below on Gen 3:1-2 and 12:4-5.
2 CHAPTER THREE
364 3 ii Add. + Gen 28:6
364 4be ii Gen 30:26-36 + add.
365 6a ii and c Add. + Exod 15:22-26
364 14 ?, Exod 19:17?; 24:12-14
364 15 Exod 24:18 + add. + 25:1-2
365 23 Lev 23:4224:2 + add.

The rewriting of the contents of the Torah in 4QRP involves the
addition and omission of elements, as well as the rearrangement of
verses and pericopes, visible in the juxtaposition of the following
pericopes. The background of these changes has been discussed
elsewhere:
7


158 12 Gen 32:25-32, Exod 4:27-28
364 14 ?, Exod 19:17?; 24:12-14
8

367 2ab Lev 15:14-15; 19:1-4, 9-15
367 3 Add.? + Lev 20:13; 27:30-34
366 2 Lev 24:20-22 (?); 25:39-43
365 28 Num 4:47-49; 7:1
365 36 Num 27:11; 36:1-2
366 4 i
9
Num 29:3230:1; Deut 16:13-14

364 26b, e ii Deut 9:21?, 25?; 10:1-4

Some juxtapositions of different verses only seemingly differ from the
biblical text, as they follow an early textual arrangement that is also
reflected in the SP. From these and other cases, it is clear that the text of
4QRP follows the textual tradition of the SP and the Qumran
manuscripts related to it. As a result, the sections that are designated in
the following instances as reflecting two different biblical books actually
reflect their juxtaposition in a single biblical book:

158 78 Exod 20:12,16,17; Deut 5:30,31;
Exod 20:22-26; 21:1, 3, 4, 6,8,10


7
Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to
4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod, in Renewed Covenant, 11134.
8
This is probably not a juxtaposition of two verses, but rather an exegetical expansion of
the text in chapter 24 with elements drawn from chapter 19 among other places.
9
It is not known at which place in the original manuscript this fragment was located:
Numbers, Deuteronomy, or elsewhere. See chapter 20*, n. 95.
4QREWORKED PENTATEUCH: A SYNOPSIS 3
This section reflects the context of the Exodus pericope, as in the SP.

158 6 Exod 20:19-22; Deut 5:29;
18:18-20,22

This section likewise reflects the context of the Exodus pericope in the
SP.

364 23ab i Num 20:17-18; Deut 2:8-14

This section reflects the context of the Deuteronomy pericope, as in
the SP.
The main purpose of this short study is to present a synopsis of the
content of 4QRP, which has not been included in the DJD edition. The
synopsis shows clearly the wide coverage of 4QRP, covering all of the
Torah, with some exegetical material. It records the content of all five
manuscripts of 4QRP, as well as of two fragments possibly belonging to
this composition, 4QGen
hpara
and 4QGen
k
(see notes 19 and 20). Six
further fragments could have belonged to 4QRP or to a similar source:
1. 2QExod
b
. The suggestion has been raised that the fragments
10
of
this composition
11
reflect a work similar to 4QRP. See below.
2. 4QExod
d
.
12

3. 6QDeut?.
4. 4QDeut
k2
, containing segments of chapters 19, 20, 23, 25, and 26.
13

5. 11QT
b
XI 21-24 previously described as 11QDeut (Deut 13:7-11) by
van der Ploeg,
14
but identified as part of 11QT
b
by van der Woude
15
and
F. Garca Martnez.
16


10
Exod 4:31; 12:26-27 (?); 18:21-22; 19:9; 21:3722:2, 15-19; 27:17-19; 31:16-17; 34:10.
11
See Tov, Biblical Texts (n. 7 above). The remains of this text are fragmentary, but
there are several indications that it is not a regular biblical manuscript. It contains several
deviations from the known biblical text (Exod 22:2, 15; 27:17, 18), all of which involve a
longer text not preserved elsewhere. Especially interesting is frg. 8 of 2QExod
b
, in which
two lines are found preceding Exod 34:10 that are not known from the context in any of the
textual witnesses. The first line reads ]hwm dgyw [, and the second line contains a vacat. In
DJD III, M. Baillet tentatively explained these two lines as representing Exod 19:9.
However, it is more likely that this fragment represents a nonbiblical addition before 34:10
similar to the additions in 4QRP. This solution resembles Baillets naming of this text as a
possible florilge in DJD III, 55. The fact that the Tetragrammaton in 2QExod
b
is inscribed in
paleo-Hebrew and not in the square script may constitute a further argument in favor of
the assumption that it does not represent a regular biblical manuscript since most of the
manuscripts that present the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew characters are nonbiblical.
See Scribal Practices, 23846.
12
See chapter 4*.
13
The scribe of this manuscript wrote the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew characters
in Deut 26:3, as did the scribe of 2QExod
b
and six other biblical manuscripts.
14
J. P. M. van der Ploeg, Les manuscrits de la grotte XI de Qumran, RevQ 12 (1985
1987) 315, esp. 910.
4 CHAPTER THREE
6. 11QLev
b
(fragments of Leviticus 713),
17
described by van der Ploeg
as close to 11QT
b
.
18


GENESIS
4QGen
k
Gen 3:1-2?
19

4QGen
h
-para

Gen 12:4-5
20

365 1 Gen 21:9-10
364 1ab Gen 25:18-21
364 2 Gen 26:7-8
364 3 i Gen 27:39 or 41
364 3 ii Add. + Gen 28:6
364 4a Gen 29:32-33?
364 4b, e i Gen 30:8-14
364 4be ii Gen 30:26-36 + add.
364 5ab i Gen 31:47-53
364 6 Gen 32:18-20
158 12 Gen 32:25-32 (Exod 4:27-28)
364 5b ii Gen 32:26-30
158 3 Gen 32:32
364 7 Gen 34:2 (?)
364 8 i Gen 35:28
364 8 ii Gen 37:7-8
364 9ab Gen 38:14-21
364 10 Gen 44:3045:1
364 11 Gen 45:21-27
364 12 Gen 48:14-15 (?)

EXODUS

15
A. S. van der Woude, Ein bisher unverffentlichtes Fragment der Tempelrolle, RevQ
13 (1988) 8992.
16
11QTemple
b
. A Preliminary Publication, in Trebolle, Madrid Qumran Congress, 363
91, esp. 389. See also DJD XXIII, 388.
17
DJD XXIII, 17.
18
Van der Ploeg, Les manuscrits, 315, esp. 10 (see n. 14 above).
19
In his publication of 4QGen
k
, frg. 5, J. Davila quotes J. Strugnell who suggests that this
fragment actually belongs to 4Q158, and hence to 4QRP. This assumption is based on
paleographical considerations, and since the fragment is very small, its provenience cannot
be established easily. The text of this fragment deviates slightly from MT. See DJD XII, 75.
20
J. Davila suggests that 4Q8b, written in the same handwriting as the other fragments
of 4QGen
h
, possibly belongs to 4QRP or another rewritten text of Genesis. The text of this
small fragment deviates slightly from MT. See DJD XII, 62.
4QREWORKED PENTATEUCH: A SYNOPSIS 5
158 4 Exod 3:12; 24:4-6
158 12 (Gen 32:25-32), Exod 4:27-28
365 2 Exod 8:13-19
365 3 Exod 9:9-12
365 4 Exod 10:19?-20
365 5 Exod 14:10
365 6a i Exod 14:12-21
365 6b Exod 15:16-[21]
365 6a ii and c Add. + Exod 15:22-26
365 7 i Exod 17:3-5
365 7 ii Exod 18:13-16
158 5 Exod 19:17-23
364 14 ?, Exod 19:17?; 24:12-14
158 78 Exod 20:12,16,17
(Deut 5:30,31);
Exod 20:22-26; 21:1,3,4,6,8,10
158 6 Exod 20:19-22 (Deut 5:29,
18:18-20,22)
364 13ab Exod 21:14-22
158 9 Exod 21:15,16,18,20,22,25
158 1012 Exod 21:32,34,35-37; 22:1-11,13
366 1 Exod 21:3522:5
364 14 ?, Exod 19:17?; 24:12-14
364 15 Exod 24:18 + add. + 25:1-2
364 16 Exod 26:1
364 17 Exod 26:33-35
365 8ab Exod 26:34-36
365 9ab i Exod 28:16-20
365 9b ii Exod 29:20-22
158 13 Exod 30:32,34
365 10 Exod 30:3731:2
365 11 i Exod 35:[2]-5
365 12a i Exod 36:32-38
365 12ab ii Exod 37:2938:7
365 12b iii Exod 39:1-16
365 13 Exod 39:17-19

LEVITICUS-NUMBERS
21

365 14 Lev 11:1-[3]

21
These two books are presented together since 4Q365 26ab probably contains the end
of Leviticus together with the beginning of Numbers.
6 CHAPTER THREE
365 15ab Lev 11:17-[25]
365 16 Lev 11:32-[33]
365 17ac Lev 11:[39]-[46]
367 1ab Lev 11:4713:1
365 18 Lev 13:6-8
365 19 Lev 13:15-[19]
365 20 Lev 13:51-52
367 2ab Lev 15:14-15; 19:1-4, 9-15
365 21 Lev 16:6-7 or 11-12 or 17-18
365 22ab Lev 18:[25]-[29]
367 3 Add.? + Lev 20:13; 27:30-34
365 23 Lev 23:4224:2 + add.
366 2 Lev 24:20-22 (?); 25:39-43
365 24 Lev 25:7-9
365 25ac Lev 26:17-32
367 3 (Add.? + Lev 20:13); 27:30-34
365 26ab Lev 27:34 (?); Num 1:1-5
365 27 Num 3:26-30
365 28 Num 4:47-49; 7:1
365 29 Num 7:78-80
365 30 Num 8:11-12
365 31ac Num 9:1510:[4]
365 32 Num 13:[11]-25
365 33ab Num 13:[28]-30
364 18 Num 14:16-20 + ?
365 34 Num 15:26-[29]
365 35 ii Num 17:20-24
365 36 Num 27:11; 36:1-2
366 3 Num 29:14-[25]
366 4 i Num 29:3230:1
(Deut 16:13-14)
364 19ab Num 33:31-49
4QREWORKED PENTATEUCH: A SYNOPSIS 7

DEUTERONOMY
364 20ac Deut 1:1-6
364 21ak Deut 1:17-33
364 22 Deut 1:45-46
365 37 Deut 2:24 or 36?
364 23ab i (Num 20:17-18) Deut 2:8-14
364 24ac Deut 2:303:2
364 25ac Deut 3:18-23
364 26a i Deut 9:6-7
364 26b i Deut 9:12-18
364 26a ii Deut 9:22-24
364 26cd Deut 9:27-29
364 26b, e ii Deut 9:21?, 25?; 10:1-4
364 27 ?, Deut 10:6-7?
364 28ab Deut 10:10-13
364 29 Deut 10:2211:2
364 30 Deut 11:6-9
364 31 Deut 11:23-24
366 5 Deut 14:[13]-21
364 32 Deut 14:24-26
366 4 i (Num 29:3230:1)
Deut 16:13-14
22

365 38 Deut 19:2020:1

The fragments of 4Q364367 representing different copies of the same
text, overlap only twice. 4Q364 17 (Exod 26:33-35) overlaps with 4Q365
8ab (Exod 26:34-36) and 4Q365 26ab (Lev 27:34?) overlaps with 4Q367
3 (Lev 27:30-34) in the last verse of Leviticus, 27:34. In the overlapping
text, there are also elements in 4Q365 that are not shared with the other
textual witnesses of the Bible, but these may have appeared in the
lacunae in 4Q367. To these instances we should add the cases of
overlapping between 4Q364 and 4Q366, on the one hand, and 4Q158, on
the other, viz., 4Q364 5b ii (Gen 32:26-30) = 4Q158 12 (Gen 32:25-32;
Exod 4:27-28); 4Q364 13ab (Exod 21:14-22) = 4Q158 9 (Exod 21:15,
16,18,20,22,25); 4Q366 1 (Exod 21:3522:5) = 4Q158 1012 (Exod 21:32,34,
35-37; 22:1-11,13). A greater amount of overlap between the five groups
of fragments would have been expected; the paucity of such overlaps is
probably mere coincidence.


22
See n. 9.





CHAPTER FOUR

EXCERPTED AND ABBREVIATED BIBLICAL TEXTS
FROM QUMRAN
1. Introduction
The production of abbreviated versions, and the excerpting and
collecting of different items in anthologies were established phenomena
in antiquity,
1
and the existence of such compositions at Qumran is
therefore not surprising. That some of the nonbiblical Qumran texts
contain anthologies of excerpts was recognized long ago. Most of these
texts contain an anthology of biblical texts together with their
interpretation. This pertains to 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) and 4QCatena A
(4Q177), each containing a collection, which have been reinterpreted by
Steudel
2
as reflecting two segments of the same composition, a thematic
pesher relating to the end of days, and renamed by her as
4QMidrEschat
a,b
. This composition contains sections from Deuteronomy
33 and 2 Samuel 7, as well as several Psalms, with their interpretation.
According to Steudel, other Qumran texts possibly reflecting segments of
4QMidrEschat are 4Q178, 182, and 183. Another group of excerpts is
found in a composition named 4QOrdinances, viz., 4Q159 and 4Q513
514 (4QOrd
a,b,c
), that interprets a series of biblical laws. 11Q13
(11QMelch), another thematic pesher, interprets a series of biblical texts
relating to the end of time. 4QTanhumim (4Q176) likewise contains
excerpts from a variety of texts on a common theme, viz., consolation.
The combination of excerpts as described above differs from the
juxtaposition of different literary compositions in the same scroll,
sometimes inscribed on the verso and recto, possibly because they
belong together, or perhaps due to the scarcity of writing material.
3
Such
a collection is found on the two sides of a papyrus containing

1
For a good summary, see H. Chadwick, Florilegium, Reallexikon fr Antike und
Christentum, VII (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1969) 113160. See further the index in T. Birt,
Kritik und Hermeneutik nebst Abriss des Antiken Buchwesens (Munich: Beck, 1913). For later
examples, see the Odes in the Septuagint and the Fragmentary Targumim.
2
Steudel, Der Midrasch.
3
For a discussion of such opisthographs, see Scribal Practices, 6874.
2 CHAPTER FOUR

papPrFtes
c
(4Q509), papDibHam
b
(4Q505), and papPrFtes
c
on the
recto, papM
f
(4Q496) and papDibHam
c
(4Q506) on the verso.
4

All the above-mentioned excerpted texts reflect the characteristics of
the Qumran scribal practice.
5
It is not difficult to find also the ideas of the
Qumran covenanters in several of these texts.
The present study is concerned with a further group of excerpted
texts, that of biblical texts proper with no accompanying exegesis. The
existence of a group of excerpted biblical texts has also been recognized
in the past.
6
Our remarks are limited to the Qumran evidence, as no
excerpted texts are known from Nahal Hever, Nahal S eelim, Masada, or
Murabbaat.
The common denominator of these excerpted texts is that they present
large or small segments of the biblical text without accompanying
commentaries or reflections on the texts. However, the methods of
excerpting differ in the various texts in accordance with their purpose.
These texts are of interest at all levels for the biblical scholar, as they
relate to the exegesis, literary criticism, liturgy, the development of the
canon, and textual criticism, although in the latter case their evidence
should be used carefully.
In order to have a better understanding of the group of compositions
under investigation, we should first turn our attention to another group
of texts that seem close to the excerpted texts, and have indeed been
mentioned in the same breath by scholars,
7
viz., rewritten Bible texts (see
chapter 6*). However, the two groups of texts are different. Excerpted
texts should be regarded as biblical texts, shortened for a special purpose
and presented without a commentary, while rewritten Bible texts, whose
contents are often very close to what we are used to calling biblical
manuscripts, do not pretend to present the text of the Bible. The same
characterization probably applies to 2QExod
b
,
8
but its character is
unclear due to the fragmentary state of its preservation. Both Stegemann
9

and Brooke
10
refer to 2QExod
b
as an excerpted text of Exodus, but there
is actually no evidence for such a characterization.

4
See M. Baillet, DJD VII, 184.
5
Scribal Practices, 16173.
6
See especially Stegemann, Weitere Stcke, esp. 21727; G. Brooke, Torah in the
Qumran Scrolls, in Bibel in jdischer und christlicher Tradition. Festschrift fr Johann Maier
zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. H. Merklein et al.; BBB 88; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1993)
97120; Steudel, Der Midrasch, 17981.
7
Stegemann, Weitere Stcke, 220 mentioning 2QExod
b
(see below).
8
See chapter 3*, n. 11.
9
Stegemann, Weitere Stcke, esp. 21727.
10
Brooke, Torah in the Qumran Scrolls, 102 (see n. 6).
EXCERPTED AND ABBREVIATED BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM QUMRAN 3
Several compositions rewrote the Bible in some way, in varying
degrees of closeness to the biblical text. The further removed the text is
from MT, the more easily its exegetical character is recognized. The
closer the text is to MT, the more difficult it is to define its character. In
any event, our concern is not with the rewritten biblical texts, but with
the biblical texts proper; more specifically, with excerpted biblical texts.
In order to define more precisely the focus of our research, these two
types of composition need to be contrasted.
Some of the excerpted biblical texts, with which this study is
concerned, deviate from the text common to the other manuscripts of the
Bible to such an extent that doubts are raised with regard to their status
as excerpted biblical manuscripts. It is understood, however, that in early
times many of the biblical texts differed greatly from one another. In fact,
at that time no two manuscripts were identical and very few were
similar. Scribes allowed themselves to make major changes in the text, so
major that it is often difficult to distinguish between the last stage in the
multi-layered history of the composition of the biblical books and the
initial stages of their scribal transmission. As difficult as it may be to
understand this situation, no one will doubt that texts diverging from
each other as greatly as the MT of Jeremiah on the one hand and the LXX
and 4QJer
b,d
on the other represent the same biblical book. We now
know a relatively large group of such widely diverging texts, and the
Qumran texts continue to provide further examples of this kind.
11
By the
same token, within the wide spectrum of biblical texts there was room
for such very divergent orthographic and morphological practices as
reflected on the one hand in the proto-Masoretic texts and on the other in
such texts as 1QIsa
a
.
12

The existence of excerpted texts was first mentioned by Stegemann,
who listed some in his 1967 study focusing on 4QDeut
n
(see n. 6). We are
now able to identify a much larger group of excerpted texts that are
recognized by different criteria. Each excerpted text is of a different
nature, and because of its fragmentary state of preservation, the nature
of several texts is not clear. Nor is it clear what the Sitz im Leben was of
some of these compositions. The largest group of excerpted texts was
probably prepared for liturgical purposes, and, just like lectionaries in
ancient and modern times, they contain excerpts from biblical texts
prepared for devotional purposes. Others were made for exegetical-
ideological (4QTest) and literary purposes. Excerpted texts are
recognized by the juxtaposition of different biblical texts, either from

11
For a discussion, see TCHB, 31350.
12
See Scribal Practices, 26173.
4 CHAPTER FOUR

different books or from the same book. All collections of excerpts are
written in scrolls of small dimensions, and sometimes their limited scope
is the main criterion for assuming the existence of an excerpted text.
13
In
the following list, excerpted texts are mentioned together with
abbreviated texts (for the distinction, see below, 4).
2. List
a. 4QTestimonia (4Q175). This text constitutes the clearest example of a
small anthology, containing three texts from the Torah (Exod 20:21
according to the SP; Num 24:15-17; Deut 33:8-11),
14
with a fourth one
quoting from an extra-biblical composition, 4QapocrJoshua
b
(4Q379).
15

The common theme of these texts is probably the Messiah. The four
pericopes are written in separate paragraphs, the last lines of which have
been left empty following the last word; each new pericope is indicated
with a curved paragraphos sign denoting a new section.
16

b. Tefillin and mezuzot.
17
Each phylactery contains a selection of four
different sections from Exodus and Deuteronomy, indicating its
liturgical character. Some of them reflect the sections prescribed in
rabbinic sources: b. Menah. 34a37b, 42b43b (especially 34b) and
Massekhet Tefillin 9 (see Higger, Minor Treatises), namely, Exod 13:1-10,
13:11-16; Deut 6:4-9, 11:13-21 (italicized in Tables 1 and 2). Other tefillin
reflect a wider range, including additional sections from Exodus 12 and
Deuteronomy 5, 6, 10, 11, and 32. The range of these selections and their
orthographical and morphological systems are discussed elsewhere.
18

The tefillin and mezuzot thus contain excerpts from the Torah, separated
by a vacat in the middle of the line or a blank line. Since no comments are

13
Stegemann, Weitere Stcke, 218 also invokes the use of certain types of handwriting
for the recognition of excerpted texts. This criterion is problematic.
14
The nature of the first excerpt creates a somewhat unusual impression as it seems to
quote from two pericopes in Deuteronomy (Deut 5:28-29, 18:18-19), but in fact it contains
merely one text which, as in SP (Exod 20:21), is composed of two pericopes that occur in
different places in MT. For the same juxtaposition of texts, see 4Q158 (4QRP
a
), frg. 6.
15
Publication: C. Newsom, DJD XXII.
16
A very similar sign separates the sections in Greek excerpted texts; see P.Tebt. I 1-2
and P.Petrie I,3. See Scribal Practices, 182, 361.
17
The main group of tefillin was published by J. T. Milik in DJD VI; for a preliminary
publication of four tefillin, see K. G. Kuhn, Phylakterien aus Hhle 4 von Qumran
(AHAW, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1957,1). A second group was published by Y. Yadin, Tefillin from
Qumran (XQ Phyl 14) (Jerusalem 1969) = ErIsr 9 (1969) 6085. Corrections for the latter are
provided by M. Baillet, Nouveaux phylactres de Qumran (XQ Phyl 14) propos dune
dition rcente, RevQ 7 (1970) 40315. See further 1Q13 and 8Q3. 5QPhyl (5Q8) has not
been opened. M. Morgenstern and M. Segal, DJD XXXVIII published two tefillin from
Nahal Hever/Wadi Seiyal. See the analysis of these texts in Scribal Practices, 2568, 27071.
18
Scribal Practices, 27071.
EXCERPTED AND ABBREVIATED BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM QUMRAN 5
added, these are truly excerpted texts. The range of variation in these
texts reflects the known variants between biblical manuscripts, and is not
specific to these excerpted texts. On the other hand, the scribal practices
used in the writing of these texts differ from the writing of the biblical
texts.
19
The following sections are included in the tefillin, displayed here
in two tables showing adherence or non-adherence to Qumran scribal
practices:
20

Table 1: Contents of Tefillin from Cave 4
Written in the Qumran Scribal Practice
Tefillin Deut Deut Deut Exod

A (a) 5:1-14; 5:276:3 10:1211:12,
13-21
12:43-51,
13:1-7
B (a) 5:16:3, 4-5 13:9-16
G (h) 5:1-21 13:11-12
H (h) 5:226:3, 4-5 13:14-16
I (h) 6:6-7 (?) 11:13-21 12:43-51,
13:1-10
J (h) 5:1-32; 6:2-3
K (h) 10:1211:12
L (h) 5:7-24
M (h) 5:336:3, 4-5 12:44-51,
13:1-10
N (h) 32:14-20,
32-33

O 5:1-16; 6:7-9
P 10:2211:3,
18-21

Q 11:4-12, 13-
18
13:4-9
Table 2: Contents of Tefillin from Cave 4
Not Written in the Qumran Scribal Practice
Tefillin Exod Deut Deut


19
See Scribal Practices, 27071 and D. Rothstein, From Bible to Murabbaat: Studies in the
Literary, Scribal and Textual Features of Phylacteries and Mezuzot in Ancient Israel and Early
Judaism, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1992.
20
The following abbreviations are used: (a)rm, (h)ead.
6 CHAPTER FOUR

C (a) 13:1-16 6:4-9 11:13-21
D (h) ? 11:13-21
E (h) ? 13:1-9
F (h) 13:11-16
R 13:1-10
S 11:19-21

The mezuzot are more fragmentary than the tefillin. They contain
sections from either a single text (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 6, 11, or 13)
or from two texts: Deuteronomy 6, 1011 (4QMez B) and Deuteronomy
56, 10 (4QMez C).
c. 4QDeut
j
. According to Duncan in DJD XIV, 4QDeut
j
contains
segments of both Exodus (12:43 ff.; 13:1-5) and Deuteronomy (chapters 5,
6, 8, 11, 30 [?], 32). The script of the fragments of Exodus and Deutero-
nomy is identical, as are the leather, the pattern of deterioration of the
fragments and the column length of 14 lines,
21
and Duncan therefore
considers these fragments to have derived from a single scroll containing
segments of both biblical books. Although no fragment has been
preserved containing a join of Exodus and Deuteronomy,
22
the
possibility raised by Duncan
23
is very attractive, and is confirmed by the
photographs. That this text, probably written in the Qumran practice,
indeed contains excerpts which served liturgical purposes is supported
by two considerations: this manuscript consist of sections that are also
contained in the Qumran tefillin recorded in Table 1,
24
and the
manuscript is of small dimensions (14 lines), on which see below.
d. 4QDeut
n
. This enigmatic text contains six columns of small
dimensions written on two sheets. The first sheet, originally attached to
the second one,
25
did not contain the beginning of the scroll since it

21
The length of frg. 8, for which 11 lines are reconstructed by Duncan, is exceptional,
and should be further investigated.
22
hwhy on the first line of frg. 11, recorded as line 11 of that fragment, is listed by Duncan
as Deut 11:21? and is followed by three lines from Exod 12:43. However, that word can
also be read as hwhy?l which is found in the immediately preceding context in Exodus. The
join tentatively suggested by Duncan on the basis of this single word is therefore not
certain.
23
J. A. Duncan, Considerations of 4QDt
j
in Light of the All Souls Deuteronomy and
Cave 4 Phylactery Texts, in Madrid Qumran Congress, 199215 and plates 27.
24
In two tefillin (4QPhyl A, I), Deut 11:13-21 is followed directly by Exod 12:43. An
exception should be made for the fragment of 4QDeut
j
containing Deuteronomy 8, which is
not contained in the tefillin. That chapter, however, is also contained in 4QDeut
n
, which for
other reasons is also regarded as a liturgical text. A second exception is made by Duncan
for the inclusion in 4QDeut
j
of Deut 30:17-18, but she is not certain about the identification.
25
Thus Stegemann, Weitere Stcke, 222, who inspected the scroll before its two sheets
were disconnected.
EXCERPTED AND ABBREVIATED BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM QUMRAN 7
displays sewn edges at its right margin. The first sheet contains the text
of Deut 8:5-10, while the second sheet contains Deut 5:16:1 in five
columns. The first sheet consists of a single, wide column (7 lines of 40
65 letter-spaces), while the next five columns contain 12 lines of 3050
letter-spaces. The text of the Decalogue is that of Deuteronomy,
26
but in
the fourth commandment it adds the text of Exod 20:11 after Deut 5:15,
as in 4QPhyl G, 8QPhyl, 4QMez A and Pap Nash. White
27
elaborates on
an earlier view expressed by Stegemann
28
that this scroll is not a regular
biblical scroll, but rather contains excerpts from Deuteronomy. Another
view, not necessarily in contradiction to this assumption, has been
suggested by Weinfeld
29
and Eshel.
30
According to this view, 4QDeut
n

should be regarded as a liturgical or devotional text, since its second
sheet contains a section used in several Qumran tefillin
31
(5:16:1) and the
first sheet contains 8:5-10, a section that serves as the basis for the
blessing after the meals.
32

e. 4QDeut
q
(Deut 32:37-43).
33
This is a scroll of small dimensions,
probably containing only the poem in Deuteronomy 32 (one column of
11 lines of 21 letter-spaces and a final column of 11 lines of 1415 letter-
spaces). The empty space to the left of the last verses of chapter 32 shows
that this is the last column of the scroll, though not of the book. This
scroll does not contain a shorter text of Deuteronomy, but rather a
selection from Deuteronomy, or of poems of sundry nature, or perhaps
this song only. The scroll is probably of very limited scope, like all copies

26
On the text of this scroll, see especially E. Eshel, 4QDeut
n
A Text That Has
Undergone Harmonistic Editing, HUCA 62 (1991) 11754.
27
S. A. White, 4QDt
n
: Biblical Manuscript or Excerpted Text?, in Of Scribes and Scrolls,
1320; eadem, The All Souls Deuteronomy and the Decalogue, JBL 109 (1991) 193206.
28
Stegemann, Weitere Stcke.
29
M. Weinfeld, Prayer and Liturgical Practice in Qumran, in The Scrolls of the Judaean
Desert, Forty Years of Research (ed. M. Broshi et al.; Heb.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1992)
16075.
30
Eshel, 4QDeut
n
, esp. 14852 (see n. 26).
31
4QPhyl A, B, G, H, J, L, M, O.
32
According to a further view, by J. Strugnell, quoted and discussed by White, 4QDt
n

(1990), the first sheet constituted a correction sheet that was incorrectly sewn to the right of
what now constitutes the second sheet.
33
Publication: P. W. Skehan and E. Ulrich, DJD XIV. See the analysis by P.-M. Bogaert,
Les trois rdactions conserves et la forme originale de lenvoi du Cantique de Mose (Dt
32,43), in Das Deuteronomium, Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL 68;
Leuven: University Press, 1985) 32940. For earlier discussions, see especially E. S. Artom,
Sul testo di Deuteronomio XXXII, 3743, RSO 32 (1957) 28591; R. Meyer, Die
Bedeutung von Deuteronomium 32,8f. 43 (4Q) fr die Auslegung des Mosesliedes, in
Verbannung und Heimkehr, Beitrge . . . W. Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstage (ed. A. Kuschke;
Tbingen: Mohr, 1961) 197209.
8 CHAPTER FOUR

of the Five Scrolls,
34
and like 4QPs
g
. Note that 4QPhyl N also contained
Deuteronomy 32.
f. 4QPs
g,h
and 5QPs, all containing Psalm 119. Probably the first two
scrolls, and possibly also the third one,
35
contained only that psalm.
4QPs
g
is of small dimensions (9 lines), a fact that supports the
assumption that the scroll contains only this psalm, which had a special
status among the early texts of Psalms, since it was consistently written
stichometrically in the various texts.
36

g. 4QExod
d
. This scroll, covering Exod 13:15-16 and 15:1, omits a
major section of Exodus following the laws of the Mazzot festival ending
at 13:16. The narrative section of 13:17-22 and all of chapter 14 are
omitted and it recommences in 15:1 with the Song at the Sea. In her
edition of the text in DJD XII, Sanderson suggests that it constitutes a
fragment of a liturgical scroll.
37

h. 4QDeut
k1
.
38
The scroll, written in the Qumran scribal practice,
contains sections of Deuteronomy 5, 11, and 32,
39
all of which are also
contained in the tefillin written in the Qumran scribal practice (Table 1).
While the survival of these particular passages of Deuteronomy may be a
matter of coincidence, the suggestion has been made that the choice of
these passages reflects a certain reality. As with 4QDeut
j,n
, this scroll
could have contained a collection of liturgical texts.
i. 4QCant
a
and 4QCant
b
.
40
These scrolls contain two different
shortened versions of Canticles, following the order of the text in the
other biblical witnesses, thus abbreviating it in the same way as
4QExod
d
. The background of the abbreviating differed, however. While
the texts of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Psalms probably presented
liturgical anthologies, the Canticles texts contain abbreviated versions of
an undetermined nature, probably reflecting the excerptors literary
taste.
These texts contain the following sections:

4QCant
a
col. i 3:4-5
col. ii 3:74:6
col. iii 4:7, 6:11?7:7
4QCant
b
frg. 1 2:93:2

34
See Scribal Practices, 98.
35
Thus Milik, DJD III, 174.
36
Thus 1QPs
a
, 4QPs
g
, 4QPs
h
, 5QPs, 11QPs
a
.
37
Ibid., p. 127.
38
See J. Duncan in DJD XIV.
39
No fragments from other chapters have been preserved.
40
Publication: E. Tov, DJD XVI, 195219.
EXCERPTED AND ABBREVIATED BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM QUMRAN 9
frg. 2 i 3:[2]5, 9-11, [4:1a]
frg. 2 ii 4:1b-3, 8-11a
frg. 3 4:[11b]5:1
Both 4QCant
a
and 4QCant
b
lack substantial segments of text found in
the other textual witnesses (one segment in 4QCant
a
iii: Cant 4:7 until
6:11; two segments in 4QCant
b
, viz., Cant 3:6-8 in 4QCant
b
2 i; and Cant
4:4-7 in 4QCant
b
2 ii). The shorter text of the two scrolls vis--vis the
other witnesses is thus a well-supported feature. Where the two texts
overlap, they are shorter in different places. Part of the section which is
lacking in 4QCant
a
iii between Cant 4:8 and 6:11 is extant in 4QCant
b
2 ii
and 3; likewise, the section lacking in 4QCant
b
2 i, viz., Cant 3:6-8, is
partially represented in 4QCant
a
ii, and the section lacking in 4QCant
b
2
ii, viz., Cant 4:4-7, is represented in 4QCant
a
iii. In chapter 4, different
sections are thus lacking in 4QCant
a
and 4QCant
b
, and to some extent
the two scrolls supplement each other. The shorter text of the two scrolls
was created consciously by the scribes or their predecessors by
shortening the content of the biblical book was evidently not a matter of
scribal negligence (in one case, in 4QCant
b
,

the omission is very large
and would have filled several columns in this scroll of small
dimensions). The assumption that scribal negligence is not involved is
based on the fact that complete literary units are missing in the three
instances of a shorter text in the two different manuscripts. The two texts
undoubtedly present manuscripts of Canticles rather than commentaries
or paraphrases, but they constitute biblical manuscripts of a special kind.
With some hesitation, they are described here as abbreviated texts,
although there are no exact parallels for this assumption among other
Qumran texts. 4QExod
d
probably formed another such abbreviated text.
Further parallels are excerpted biblical texts that juxtapose segments of
the Bible according to considerations of content, such as described in this
study. The reference to abbreviating may seem somewhat exaggerated
for the few instances of text shortening, but the result of this abbreviating
is that the text of 4QCant
a
is much shorter than the other witnesses.
4QCant
b
is only slightly shorter, but if that text terminated at 5:1, as
suggested in DJD XVI, 217, it presented only the first half of the biblical
book. Attention is also drawn to the scribal signs in 4QCant
b
(letters in
the paleo-Hebrew script and some cryptic signs) and the remnants of a
superscription in the top margin of frg. 1 of the same manuscript, all of
which may have been related to the special character of these
manuscripts. The biblical book of Canticles contains a conglomeration of
love songs rather than one coherent composition, and therefore segments
10 CHAPTER FOUR

could be removed from it without harming the context. This is the case
with the two Qumran scrolls, each of which has been shortened in a
different way and follows the sequence of the text as extant in the other
textual witnesses. Underlying this description, thus, is the understanding
that the Qumran scrolls shortened an already existing text, while the
assumption that they represented early literary crystallizations of the
book differing from that represented by the other textual witnesses,
though not impossible, is discarded.

That the omissions in these manuscripts, as compared with the other
textual witnesses, do not reflect scribal negligence is clear from 4QCant
b
2 iii 67 where the omission of Cant 4:4-7 is indicated by an open
paragraph after v 3 at the end of line 6, and a large indentation at the
beginning of the next line, before the text of v 8. Likewise, at the point
where 4QCant
a
ii 12 omits a large section, Cant 4:86:10, a partial and a
complete empty line were probably found in the reconstructed text.
Furthermore, the last verse of the omitted section 4:4-7, Cant 4:7, forms
the end of a content unit, which is indicated in MT with a closed
paragraph, and the next verse in the scroll, Cant 6:11, begins another
unit, indicated in MT with a closed paragraph after 6:10.
j. Many of the Qumran psalms texts reflect a special type of excerpted
text, prepared for liturgical purposes. The question of whether several of
the psalm scrolls from Qumran reflect a biblical text, parallel to MT but
deviating from it, or anthologies prepared for a liturgical purpose has
preoccupied scholars for some time. This question first arose with the
publication of 11QPs
a
.
41
That scroll probably should have been given a
more neutral name, since, as it stands, it is taken as a reflection of the
biblical book of Psalms. The discussion of the nature of this scroll has
been revived with the publication of the psalms scrolls from cave 4. The
issue at stake is an evaluation of the sequence of the psalms in 11QPs
a
,
which differs from MT, in conjunction with the addition of extra-
canonical psalms, at various places in the collection. Sanders, who
published 11QPs
a
, suggested that this scroll constitutes an early
crystallization of the biblical book of Psalms.
42
That literary form existed
alongside another edition of the Psalms, MT, and possibly other editions,
such as several texts from cave 4 that were not yet known to Sanders.
Talmon, Goshen-Gottstein, Skehan, and Haran all argued against this

41
J. A. Sanders, DJD IV.
42
See idem, Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPs
a
), HTR 59 (1966) 8394; Cave 11
Surprises and the Question of Canon, McCQ 21 (1968) 115; The Qumran Scroll (11QPs
a
)
Reviewed, in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (ed. M. Black
and W. A. Smalley; The Hague: Mouton, 1974) 7999.
EXCERPTED AND ABBREVIATED BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM QUMRAN 11
view and considered the Psalms Scroll from cave 11 irrelevant to the
issue of canon, since according to them it constituted a liturgical
collection.
43
Wacholder also disagreed with Sanders but turned in a
different direction when suggesting that the scroll reflects a Davidic
collection (cf. col. XXVII) intended for use in serving David at the end of
days.
44
In the wake of the finding of additional collections of Psalters,
some scholars have now returned to Sanders views. At least eight
collections of psalms from caves 4 and 11 display them in a sequence
different from that in MT, sometimes with the addition of non-canonical
psalms: (1) 11QPs
a
, also reflected in 4QPs
e
and 11QPs
b
; (2) 4QPs
a
; (3)
4QPs
b
; (4) 4QPs
d
; (5) 4QPs
f
; (6) 4QPs
k
; (7) 4QPs
n
; (8) 4QPs
q
.
45
Wilson
tabulated the agreements and disagreements among the various
collections of psalms.
46
Flint showed that most of the differences
pertained to the last two books of the Psalter (Psalms 90150), while
realizing that it is difficult to evaluate the evidence since the second part
of the book of Psalms has been better preserved at Qumran than the first
part.
47
Like Sanders and Wilson, Flint concluded that the first part of the
collection of psalms was finalized before the second part, and that the
major differences among the various collections of psalms from Qumran
reflect different crystallizations of the biblical book. Furthermore, there is
no evidence at Qumran of any scroll clearly supporting the Masoretic
Psalter, although it is difficult to be certain because of the fragmentary
evidence. On the other hand, MasPs
a
reflects MT clearly. In any event,
whatever their background, we now know of several additional
collections beyond the Masoretic collection from Qumran that are
characterized by the addition and omission of Psalms and by different

43
S. Talmon, Pisqah Beemsa Pasuq and 11QPs
a
, Textus 5 (1966) 1121; M. H. Goshen-
Gottstein, The Psalms Scroll (11QPs
a
): A Problem of Canon and Text, Textus 5 (1966) 22
33; P. W. Skehan, A Liturgical Complex in 11QPs
a
, CBQ 35 (1973) 195205; M. Haran,
11QPs
a
and the Canonical Book of Psalms, in Minhah le-NahumBiblical and Other Studies
Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday (ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane;
JSOTSup154; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 193201.
44
B. Z. Wacholder, Davids Eschatological Psalter11QPsalms
a
, HUCA 59 (1988) 23
72.
45
This list needs to be compared with the analyses in Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and
U. Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im FrhjudentumRekonstruktion, Textbestand,
Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPs
a
aus Qumran (STDJ 2003; Leiden/Boston:
2003). Possibly 11QapocrPs (11Q11) needs to be included in this list.
46
G. H. Wilson, The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of
Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter, CBQ 45 (1983) 37788; idem, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter
(SBLDS 76; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985).
47
P. W. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls.
12 CHAPTER FOUR

sequencing.
48
Because of the fragmentary preservation of the texts, it is
often not known whether the evidence of any two groups of fragments
pertains to two different scrolls or a single one. In one group only (1) can
it be demonstrated that three or four different manuscripts reflect the
same collection.
If the view suggested by Sanders, Wilson, and Flint is upheld, it
implies that the psalms fragments from caves 4 and 11 probably
constitute the group of Qumran evidence that diverges most from MT.
However, the arguments adduced in favor of the assumption that
11QPs
a
reflects a liturgical collection also hold with regard to the texts
from cave 4,
49
and this view seems preferable to us. External evidence
supporting this claim is found in the small dimensions of 4QPs
g
, which
usually indicate the limited scope of a scroll.
k. 4QEzek
a
. This scroll has been cautiously described by G. J. Brooke
as an excerpted text.
50
The principle involved is the same as that
described for 4QDeut
k1
(above, h) as an excerpted text on the basis of its
fragmentary remains, which have been described as agreeing with the
passages included in certain tefillin. While the survival of these particular
passages in Deuteronomy may be coincidental, the suggestion has been
made that the choice of these passages reflects a certain reality. By the
same token, Brooke suggests that the survival of the 4QEzek
a
fragments
is not a matter of coincidence, but reflects a selection of topics that were
also quoted several times in the literary cycle of reworked versions of the
book of Ezekiel: Ezek 10:5-15, 10:1711:11 (both: the vision of the citys
destruction), 23:14-18, 44-47 (adultery of Samaria and Jerusalem), and
41:3-6 (the temple).
The preceding list shows that the excerpted texts were often inscribed
in scrolls of limited size (4QTestimonia, tefillin and mezuzot, 4QDeut
n
,
4QDeut
q
, 4QPs
g
and 4QCant
a,b
). This custom must have developed in
response to the same need that prompted the making of excerpts. In his
discussion of excerpting in classical antiquity, Birt notes that some texts

48
For example, 4QPs
a
and 4QPs
q
omit Psalm 32, and the former reflects the following
sequence: 38, 71; 4QPs
d
has the following sequence: 147, 104, while 4QPs
e
has the sequence
118, 104 and 105, 146.
49
11QPs
a
contains prose as well as poetry sections showing the purpose of the collection
(focus on David). To one of the psalms (145), the scroll has added liturgical antiphonal
additions. The writing of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew characters in this text may
indicate that the scribe considered this to be a nonbiblical text. To these arguments, Talmon
added the fact that 11QPs
a
, unlike MasPs
b
and other biblical manuscripts, does not present
the texts in a stichometric arrangement, which was reserved for the biblical texts. See S.
Talmon, Minhah le-Nahum (see n. 43) 31827, esp. 324.
50
Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts, in Madrid Qumran Congress,
I.31737, esp. 319.
EXCERPTED AND ABBREVIATED BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM QUMRAN 13
were excerpted in order to create smaller editions that could be more
easily carried by travelers.
51
In the case of the Qumran scrolls, it was
probably their liturgical character that dictated the small, and hence
more practical, dimensions of the scrolls.
On the basis of this evidence, we now turn to three additional scrolls
whose small size may indicate that they are collections of excerpted
texts. The reasoning behind this argument is that in all these instances it
is difficult to imagine how the complete biblical book could have been
contained in a scroll of such limited dimensions. Besides, it is probably
worthwhile to point to a parallel in b. B. Bat. 14a, according to which the
size of the columns should be commensurate with the size of the scroll.
l. 4QExod
e
containing 8 lines of 3034 letter-spaces and a preserved
top and bottom margin (Exod 13:3-5). In her DJD edition, Sanderson
writes about this text: Since the column begins at the beginning of one
section of instructions for the observance of the feast of unleavened
bread, it may be that this was a manuscript for liturgical purposes
consisting of selections from the Torah.
52

m. 5QDeut (segments of chapters 5, 8) with 15 lines of 86 letter-spaces.
n. 4QPs
b
(Psalms 9194, 99100, 102103112113, 116117118) with
16 and 18 lines of 14.0 cm.
53

o. According to Lange, the columns of 4QIsa
d
were too short in order
to contain all of Isaiah. This scroll either contained only deutero-Isaiah or
was an excerpted scroll.
54

3. Excerpted or Abbreviated Texts?
Due to the fragmentary status of our evidence, excerpted texts are listed
together with abbreviated texts, but they form two different, though
similar, groups of texts. Most of the texts mentioned here present
excerpts from one or several biblical books (Exodus, Deuteronomy, or
combinations from those books; Psalms), without paying attention to the
sequence of the excerpts in the biblical witnesses. In three or possibly
four cases, however, it is evident that the composition abbreviated the
biblical book according to the sequence of the chapters in the other
textual witnesses, viz., 4QExod
d
, 4QCant
a
, 4QCant
b
, and possibly also

51
Birt, Kritik und Hermeneutik, 349 (see n. 1 above)
52
DJD XII, 130.
53
Cf. P. W. Skehan, Qumran Manuscripts, 154: Considering the short, narrow
columns with ample spacing between, it is most unlikely that 4Q Ps
b
ever contained the
entire Psalter.
54
A. Lange, review of DJD XV in DSD 8 (2001) 101102.
14 CHAPTER FOUR

4QEzek
a
. In several other cases, it is not known whether the composition
presents an excerpted or abbreviated text.
4. Background
Although the evidence for excerpting is limited, a few general
considerations are in order. Some of the excerpts from the Bible are little
more than quotes (4QTestimonia and the tefillin), while the psalms
scrolls contain anthologies of texts used for a special purpose. This
pertains also to all the excerpted texts that are not composed of biblical
texts, such as the aforementioned 4QMidrEschat
a,b
, 4QOrd
a,b,c
,
11QMelch, and 4QTanh.
Types of excerpting/abbreviating
The excerpts of biblical texts reflect different types of excerpting and
abbreviating.
a. Different sections from two books of the Torah
4QTestimonia (4Q175)
Tefillin and mezuzot
4QDeut
j
.
b. Different sections from the same book
4QExod
d
, 4QExod
e
4QDeut
k1
4QDeut
n
(sequence differing from MT)
4QDeut
q
(nature of the selection is not clear)
5QDeut (probably)
All or most of the Psalms texts
4QCant
a
and 4QCant
b
.
4QExod
d
, 4QPs
n
, 4QCant
a,b
probably present abbreviated versions.
Purpose of excerpting/abbreviating
Excerpts and abbreviated versions were prepared for different purposes.
Most classical excerpted texts in poetry and prose were made for
educational purposes, illustrating a certain topic or idea (virtues, wealth,
women, etc.).
55
Most of the excerpted texts from Qumran, on the other
hand, appear to have been liturgical.

55
See the material collected by Chadwick (n. 1). Good examples are provided by
P.Hibeh 7 (3d century BCE), P.Petrie I,3, and P.Tebt. I,12 (100 BCE). See further the much
later Greek collection of pericopes (P.Ryl. Gk. 260) from Isaiah, Genesis, Chronicles, and
Deuteronomy (4th century CE) published by C. H. Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri in the John
Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester: University Press, 1936) 4762.
EXCERPTED AND ABBREVIATED BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM QUMRAN 15
Liturgical collection
Tefillin and mezuzot
4QExod
d
covering Exod 13:15-16 and 15:1

4QExod
e
containing

Exod 13:3-5

4QDeut
j
containing

Exod 12:43ff., 13:1-5, and fragments of
Deuteronomy 5, 6, 8, 11, 30[?], and 32
4QDeut
k1
containing segments of Deuteronomy 5, 11, and 32

4QDeut
n
containing Deut 8:5-10; 5:16:1
5QDeut containing segments of Deuteronomy 5 and 8
All the anthologies of the Psalter from caves 4 and 11.
Within this group, the nature of the excerpts differs from case to case.
While the tefillin and mezuzot contain limited Scripture segments, the
psalms texts contain sizeable anthologies, probably meant for devotional
reading in private or public. These anthologies closely resemble the
Greek lectionaries of the Old and New Testaments. In the manuscripts,
the selections were at first indicated by notes in the margin, or
sometimes in the text itself, indicating the beginning (ajrchv ) and end
(telov), and at a later stage they were collected in special anthologies.
56

Personal reading
Some texts may reflect copies made for personal use.
4QDeut
q
,

containing segments of the poem in Deuteronomy 32, may
have contained segments of different books or songs, or only that poem.
The scrolls containing Psalm 119 (4QPs
g,h
and 5QPs) could have been
liturgical texts or scrolls made for personal use.
4QCant
a
and 4QCant
b
contain abbreviated versions of several
chapters. It is not impossible that the scribal signs in 4QCant
b
and the
remnants of a superscription in frg. 1 of the same manuscript were
related to the special character of these manuscripts.
4QEzek
a
(possibly).

Exegetical-ideological anthology
4QTestimonia (4Q175)
5. Textual Character
For the textual analysis of the Bible, the excerpted or abbreviated texts
provide the same type of evidence as running biblical texts, with the
exception that the lack of pericopes should be ascribed to excerpting or
shortening, and not to the special textual character of the scroll.

56
See B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek BibleAn Introduction to Greek Palaeography
(New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981) 43.
16 CHAPTER FOUR

Probably the most striking feature of the excerpted and abbreviated
texts is that, with the exception of some of the tefillin and mezuzot (Table
2), none of the collections is close to MT. This indicates that these texts
come from a certain milieu, one that differed from the circles fostering
the tradition of the writing of Scripture texts. Since the majority of the
biblical texts found at Qumran reflect MT (see chapter 10*, 4B), the
small number of excerpted and abbreviated texts written in the
Masoretic textual tradition is all the more significant. The texts written in
the Masoretic scribal tradition probably reflect the precise tradition of
writing Scripture texts fostered by rabbinic circles. At the same time, a
special group of excerpts was written in the same tradition, namely some
of the tefillin and mezuzot (Table 2 above) that would have come from the
same circles.
On the other hand, the excerpted and abbreviated texts reflect a free
manipulation of the biblical text, both in Qumran and other, probably
non-rabbinic, circles involving literary freedom with regard to the
biblical texts. These texts reflect a different approach to the Bible, and
they reflect textual traditions beyond that of MT. In this context, it is
relevant to note that several of the excerpted texts are written in the
Qumran scribal practice:
4QDeut
j
(no solid evidence), 4QDeut
k

4QTestimonia (4Q175)
Several of the tefillin and mezuzot (Table 1)
Two anthologies of Psalms: 11QPs
a
and 11QPs
b
.
As for the textual character of these texts, 4QDeut
q
has close affinities
to the LXX. Harmonizing tendencies are visible in several of the tefillin
57

and in 4QDeut
n
involving the addition of words and verses from parallel
pericopes, especially in the case of the two versions of the Decalogue.
Several of the texts reflect a free approach to Scripture, which may
indicate that they were prepared for personal use. Thus, one of the two
copies of Canticles, 4QCant
b
, contains a high percentage of scribal errors
and its scribe was much influenced by Aramaic.

57
4QMez A, 4QPhyl G, and 8QPhyl as described by E. Eshel (n. 26 above).




CHAPTER FIVE

THE TEXT OF ISAIAH AT QUMRAN
1. Number of Copies
The Qumran caves yielded no less than twenty-one copies of the book of
Isaiah.
1
Other books represented at Qumran in large numbers are
Deuteronomy, of which twenty-six copies are known,
2
and Psalms with
thirty-six copies.
3
The reason for the large number of copies of these
books was probably their popularity among the Qumran covenanters. A
close affinity with these three books is also manifest in the writings of the
Qumranites.
4
The popularity of these books at Qumran does not imply
that all the copies of Isaiah were produced there. Some were written at
Qumran, while others were produced elsewhere in Palestine and
brought to Qumran. It is important to remember this assumption, since
the information about the textual condition and transmission of Isaiah

1
The number of copies of biblical books found at Qumran should always be considered
conjectural. Most of the fragments are small, containing no more than one-tenth of a biblical
book. The script of the texts serves as the main criterion for distinguishing between the
supposedly different copies even when only tiny fragments have been preserved.
Therefore, one has to be cautious when estimating the number of scrolls on the basis of
small fragments. For example, if a scroll of Isaiah was written by more than one scribe, any
two fragments of that book written in different scripts could have belonged to that scroll.
See further chapter 10*, 1. At present, twenty-one copies are identified while at an earlier
stage, P. W. Skehan (Qumran Manuscripts, 150) mentioned sixteen copies, of which
thirteen were from cave 4, and in 1979 (Qumran, Littrature de Qumran, esp. 810) he
mentioned eighteen copies.
2
See F. Garca Martnez, Les manuscrits du Dsert de Juda et le Deutronome, in
Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed.
F. Garca Martnez et al.; VTSup 53; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994) 6382.
3
See P. W. Flint, The Psalms Scrolls from the Judaean Desert: Relationships and Textual
Affiliations, in BrookeGarca Martnez, New Qumran Texts, 3152, esp. 512.
4
The Qumranites wrote several prose compositions in the style of Deuteronomy as well
as poetical books influenced by the biblical book of Psalms. Likewise, the writings of the
Qumran community often quote from Isaiah, which held a unique place in their thinking.
All three books were often quoted in the sectarian writings from Qumran. For 1QH
a
, see P.
Wernberg-Mller, The Contribution of the Hodayot to Biblical Textual Criticism, Textus 4
(1964) 13375, esp. 1735; O. J. R. Schwarz, Der erste Teil der Damaskusschrift und das Alte
Testament (Diest: Lichtland, 1965).
2 CHAPTER FIVE
visible in the Qumran scrolls probably reflects the condition of that book
in ancient Israel as a whole, and not only at Qumran.
The following copies of Isaiah were found at Qumran:
5

1QIsa
a6
4QIsa
j

1QIsa
b7
4QIsa
k

4QIsa
a8
4QIsa
l

4QIsa
b
4QIsa
m

4QIsa
c9
4QIsa
n

4QIsa
d
4QIsa
o

4QIsa
e
4QpapIsa
p10

4QIsa
f
4QIsa
q

4QIsa
g
4QIsa
r

4QIsa
h
5QIsa
4QIsa
i

No copies of Isaiah were found at Masada, and a single copy only was
among the fragments found at Wadi Murabbaat, viz. Mur 3
(MurIsaiah).
11
By far the greatest number of copies of Isaiah thus comes
from cave 4, although the only complete copy of Isaiah, probably stored
in a jar, was found in cave 1. Due to the better storage conditions, the
two copies from cave 1 provide a greater coverage of the text of Isaiah
than the eighteen (sometimes very) fragmentary texts from cave 4.
Research on the text of Isaiah at Qumran is still very much eclipsed by
1QIsa
a
, but the time has arrived to review the picture relating to all the
fragments. While it is true that the two texts from cave 1 provide a
complete scroll (1QIsa
a
) and one that is well preserved (1QIsa
b
), there is
also one among the cave 4 texts that covers substantial sections,

5
See especially DJD XV. For an earlier detailed catalog of the contents of all the Qumran
manuscripts of Isaiah, see Skehan, Qumran, Littrature de Qumran, 8112. For a short
study on the text of Isaiah in Qumran, see F. Garca Martnez, Le livre dIsae Qumran,
MdB 49 (1987) 435. The exact contents of the fragments were recorded by E. Ulrich, Index
of Passages in the Biblical Texts, DJD XXXIX, 1924.
6
This is the large Isaiah scroll from cave 1, also named the St. Marks Isaiah.
7
This is the small Isaiah scroll from cave 1, also named the Hebrew University
Isaiah.
8
Preliminarily published by J. Muilenburg, Fragments of Another Qumran Isaiah
Scroll, BASOR 135 (1954) 2832.
9
See P. W. Skehan, The Text of Isaiah at Qumran, CBQ 17 (1955) 15863, esp. 1623.
10
This is the only Isaiah fragment written on papyrus. Very few papyrus fragments of
the biblical books have been preserved at Qumran, and their background is not clear. The
suggestion has been made that some of these were personal rather than official copies. See
Scribal Practices, 4453.
11
Published in DJD II, 7980 and pl. XXII.
TEXT OF ISAIAH AT QUMRAN 3

including both the beginning and end of the book (4QIsa
b
), and another
that is relatively well preserved (4QIsa
c
).
2. Past Research on 1QIsa
a12

The scroll that has been studied more than any of the others from
Qumran is the large Isaiah scroll from cave 1, 1QIsa
a
, probably written
between 150125 BCE.
13
This text was named the large Isaiah scroll
since it was preserved in its entirety, in contradistinction to the small
Isaiah scroll, 1QIsa
b
. It has also been named the St. Marks Isaiah
because it was initially owned by the St. Marks Monastery. 1QIsa
a
was
preserved in its entirety because it was well kept in a jar. It is not known
whether this system of storage reflects the Qumran communitys special
esteem for this particular copy of Isaiah. The Syrian Metropolitan, Mar
Athanasius Samuel, took this scroll and three others (1QapGen ar,
1QpHab, and 1QS) to the United States in 1949, where they were
purchased on behalf of the State of Israel in 1954. The large Isaiah scroll
is the longest preserved biblical scroll among the scroll specimens (7.34
m), surpassed only by a nonbiblical composition, 11QT
a
(8.148 m;
reconstructed total length 8.75 m). The two Isaiah scrolls from cave 1
were among the first to be published, 1QIsa
a
as early as 1950,
14
and
1QIsa
b
in 1954
15
and 1955,
16
and as a rule their content and description
greatly influenced scholarship. For a long period, these scrolls alone
represented for scholarship the Dead Sea scrolls, and many

12
Cf. A. S. van der Woude, Fnfzehn Jahre Qumranforschung (19741988), TRu 57
(1992) 157, esp. 15; P. W. Flint, The Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Bible as
Book, 22951.
13
Thus Cross, ALQ
3
, 176 on the basis of paleographical analysis. The radiocarbon date of
this text is 335122 BCE according to the examinations of A. J. T. Jull, D. J. Donahue, M.
Broshi, and E. Tov, Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean
Desert, Radiocarbon 37 (1995) 1119. An earlier examination ascribed a date of 199120 BCE
to this text: G. Bonani, M. Broshi, I. Carmi, S. Ivy, J. Strugnell, and W. Wlfli, Radiocarbon
Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Atiqot 20 (1991) 2732.
14
Burrows, Isaiah. The photographs of the scroll are poorly reproduced, and the
transcriptions are not up the standards accepted from 1955 onwards in the DJD series,
especially with regard to partially preserved letters and reconstructions. Better plates,
based on J. C. Trevers photographs, are included in F. M. Cross et al., Scrolls from Qumrn
Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, the Order of the Community, the Pesher to Habakkuk (Jerusalem:
Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Shrine of the Book, 1972); Parry-
Qimron, Isaiah, and E. Ulrich and P. W. Flint, DJD XXXII, forthcoming.
15
Sukenik, wsr hmgylwt hgnwzwt. Several segments of the scroll were published earlier:
Mgylwt gnwzwt, mtwk gnyzh qdwmh shnmsh bmdbr yhwdh, sqyrh rshwnh (Jerusalem: Bialik
Institute, 1948); Mgylwt gnwzwt, mtwk gnyzh qdwmh shnmsh bmdbr yhwdh, sqyrh shnyh
(Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1950).
16
D. Barthlemy and J. T. Milik, DJD I, 668 and plate XII.
4 CHAPTER FIVE
generalizations regarding biblical scrolls or the Qumran scrolls as a
whole were made on the basis of their form and content. Thus it became
commonplace to say that while the biblical texts from Qumran differed
much from MT in small details, they contributed little to our knowledge
of the biblical text,
17
since the readings of these scrolls were considered
to be more or less identical to MT (1QIsa
b
) or were often described as
secondary when compared with MT (1QIsa
a
). While these statements on
the intrinsic value of the texts are correct, neither of these texts is
representative of the Qumran scrolls,
18
and therefore no generalizations
should be made. In fact, none of the scrolls found at Qumran is
representative of the ensemble of Qumran texts. At this point a general
consideration is in order: the study of the biblical (and nonbiblical) texts
from Qumran would have been different had the texts from cave 4 been
published first or simultaneously with those from cave 1. As it
happened, the special characteristics of 1QIsa
a
were often considered by
scholars to be the norm with regard to all aspects of the Qumran texts. It
is true that other, nonbiblical, Qumran texts were known in the early
days of the scroll research, especially from cave 1, but many of their
scribal features ran parallel to those of 1QIsa
a
(see further chapter 10*).
As a result, the description of the other biblical texts, more so than that of
the nonbiblical texts, was based heavily on 1QIsa
a
. The impact of 1QIsa
b
was felt less, especially since it was so similar to MT. A few other
Qumran texts were known in the early years: 4QQoh
a
was published
preliminarily in 1954,
19
there were scattered pieces of information on
sundry texts,
20
and in 1955 fourteen relatively short texts from cave 1
were published in DJD I. In the early years of Qumran research, all of
these texts were less influential on scholarship than the Isaiah texts from
cave 1. This was due partly to the fact that these texts were freely
available, and partly because of their book-size publications, the first of
their kind, that preceded the DJD series by several years.

17
This claim has been made by several scholars, influenced much by a series of studies
on this topic by H. M. Orlinsky: Studies in the St. Marks Isaiah Scroll, JBL 69 (1950) 149
66; JNES 11 (1952) 1536; JJS 2 (19501951) 1514; JQR 43 (19521953) 32940; IEJ 4 (1954) 5
8; HUCA 25 (1954) 8592.
18
This observation was already made in 1979 by Skehan, Qumran, Littrature de
Qumran, 810.
19
J. Muilenburg, A Qoheleth Scroll from Qumran, BASOR 135 (1954) 2028.
20
See especially Cross, ALQ
3
.
TEXT OF ISAIAH AT QUMRAN 5

3. Features of 1QIsa
a

Even today, after most of the Qumran texts have either been published
or are known in some form or other, 1QIsa
a
stands out as the scroll about
which more aspects have been researched and hence are known better
than the other Qumran biblical texts. It has been published in three
facsimile editions (Burrows, Cross, Parry-Qimron; see note 14), and two
transcribed texts (Burrows and Parry-Qimron). An additional edition is
forthcoming (see n. 14). The most extensive linguistic treatment of any of
the Qumran texts has been devoted to this scroll.
21
Likewise, the most
extensive study to date on scribal habits is devoted to this and several
other texts from cave 1.
22
The only biblical text from Qumran on which a
literary analysis was composed is the Isaiah scroll.
23
More than
seventy-five scholarly articles have been written on various aspects of
this scroll.
24
Its readings are listed as variants deviating from MT in the
third apparatus of the seventh edition
25
of BH and in the HUB.
26
Since it
was a novelty to be able to compare the medieval MT with an ancient
manuscript dating from the turn of the eras, virtually every aspect of the
scroll was studied in monographic articles.
27
This pertains to the special
orthographical and morphological features of the scroll,
28
its scribal

21
Kutscher, Language.
22
Martin, Scribal Character.
23
J. R. Rosenbloom, The Dead Sea Isaiah ScrollA Literary Analysis. A Comparison with the
Masoretic Text and the Biblia Hebraica (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970). See also W. H.
Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumrn Scrolls for the Bible, with Special Attention to the Book of
Isaiah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964). This translation is now joined by M. G.
Abegg et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).
24
For the most recent studies, see Garca Martnez-Parry, Bibliography. Some studies are
listed in the following notes.
25
See chapter 18*, n. 33.
26
Goshen-Gottstein, Isaiah. See also chapter 16*.
27
Among the monographic studies, beyond Barthlemy, Critique textuelle and Kutscher,
Language, see F. D. James, A Critical Examination of the Text of Isaiah, Based on the Dead Sea
Scroll of Isaiah (DSIa), the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint . . . , unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Boston
University, 1959; F. J. Morrow, The Text of Isaiah at Qumran, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Catholic
University of America, Washington, D.C., 1973; J. Koenig, LHermneutique analogique du
Judasme antique daprs les tmoins textuels dIsaie (VTSup 33; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982); J.
Hgenhaven, The First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIs
a
) and the Massoretic Text. Some
Reflections with Special Regard to Isaiah 112, JSOT 28 (1984) 1735; Pulikottil,
Transmission (see n. 48 below). The latter study summarizes several aspects of the research
on 1QIsa
a
and provides some bibliography.
28
The literature on this topic is very extensive. The major monographs remain those of
Martin and Kutscher (see notes 2122). See further M. Burrows, Orthography,
Morphology, and Syntax of the St. Marks Isaiah Manuscript, JBL 68 (1949) 195211; A.
Rubinstein, Notes on the Use of the Tenses in the Variant Readings of the Isaiah Scroll,
VT 3 (1953) 925; idem, Formal Agreement of Parallel Clauses in the Isaiah Scroll, VT 4
(1954) 31621; M. Martin, The Use of Second Person Singular Suffixes in 1QIs
a
, Muson 70
6 CHAPTER FIVE
phenomena,
29
marginal notations,
30
deviations from MT,
31
relation to the
ancient versions
32
and medieval Hebrew manuscripts,
33
typological
similarity to the SP
34
and the Severus Scroll,
35
the relation to the textual
tradition of Kings in the parallel sections of Isaiah and 2 Kings,
paleography,
36
writing by two different scribes,
37
system of text division
into different units,
38
and its exegetical elements.

(1957) 12744; J. Leveen, The Orthography of the Hebrew Scroll of Isaiah A, Proceedings of
the 22nd Congress of Orientalists (Istanbul 1951) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957) 57783; P. Wernberg-
Mller, Studies in the Defective Spellings in the Isaiah Scroll of St. Marks Monastery, JSS
3 (1958) 24464; M. Goshen-Gottstein, Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran
Documents, ScrHier 4 (1958) 10136, reprinted in Text and Language in Bible and Qumran
(Tel Aviv: Orient Publishing House, 1960) 97132; A. Gonzlez, La lengua y la base
lingstica del Rollo de Isaas, EstBb 19 (1960) 23744; J. Koenig, Rouverture du dbat
sur la premire main rdactionnelle du rouleau ancien dIsae de Qumran (1QIs
a
) en 40,7-
8, RevQ 11 (1983) 21937; Tov, Scribal Practices, 26173; F. M. Cross, Jr., Some Notes on a
Generation of Qumran Studies, in Trebolle, Madrid Qumran Congress, 114.
29
Beyond Martin, Scribal Character, see C. Kuhl, Schreibereigentmlichkeiten
Bemerkungen zur Jesajarolle (DSIa), VT 2 (1952) 30733.
30
See especially Martin, Scribal Character; J. L. Teicher, The Christian Interpretation of
the Sign X in the Isaiah Scroll, VT 5 (1955) 18998; Tov, Scribal Practices, 178218.
31
Since the scroll is a witness to the text of the Bible, most of the articles and books on
1QIsa
a
belong to this category. Yet, there is no monograph that analyzes all or most of the
readings of the scroll comprehensively. Kutschers monograph comes closest to this goal as
it probably mentions all or most of the differences between MT and the scroll, but describes
them mainly on the linguistic level. Less comprehensive with regard to the readings
themselves, but more comprehensive regarding their background is A. van der Kooij, Die
alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO 35;
Freiburg/Gttingen: Universittsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) revised from his
Ph.D. diss.: De oude tekstgetuigen van het boek Jesaja, Utrecht University, 1978.
32
M. H. Gottstein, Die Jesajah-Rolle im Lichte von Peschitta und Targum, Bib 35 (1954)
5171; A. Penna, La Volgata e il manoscritto 1QIs
a
, Bib 38 (1957) 38195; J. Ziegler, Die
Vorlage der Isaias-Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias-Rolle von Qumran (1QIs
a
), JBL
78 (1959) 3459.
33
See M. H. Gottstein, Die Jesaiah-Rolle und das Problem der hebrischen
Bibelhandscriften, Bib 35 (1954) 42942.
34
See Kutscher, Language, 5667; Z. Ben-Hayyim, mswrt hshwmrwnym wzyqth lmswrt
hlshwn shl mgylwt ym hmlh wlshwn hzl, Leshonenu 22 (1958) 22345; M. Mansoor, Some
Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts, JSS 3 (1958) 469.
35
Kutscher, Language, 879; J. P. Siegel, The Severus Scroll and 1QIs
a
, in 1972 and 1973
Proceedings of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (ed. H. M. Orlinsky;
SBLMasS 2; 1974) 99110.
36
See Martin, Scribal Character.
37
The assumption that a second scribe started his work with col. XXVIII (chapter 33) of
1QIsa
a
at the beginning of a new sheet was accepted by several scholars, while for Martin
the two segments of that scroll were written by the same scribe: Martin, Scribal Character,
6573; thus also Kutscher, Language, 5646; J Cook, Orthographical Peculiarities in the
Dead Sea Biblical Scrolls, RevQ 14 (1989) 293305, esp. 3034. However, the assumption of
the bipartition of the scroll seems to be more sound: Thus M. Noth, Eine Bemerkung zur
Jesajarolle vom Toten Meer, VT 1 (1951) 2246; Kuhl, Schreibereigentmlichkeiten (see
n. 29), esp. 3323. This assumption is supported by arguments at the paleography level, but
TEXT OF ISAIAH AT QUMRAN 7

The latter aspect is of particular interest. Already in 1955,
Chamberlain recognized messianic interpretations in several readings in
the scroll.
39
For example, according to this scholar, the third person
forms w[wrz (2x) and wyla in 1QIsa
a
51:5 for y[(w)rz and yla in MT refer to
the Messiah, and the other words in the context were conceived of as
messianic names: y[y, hrwt, yfpm, yqdx, yt[wy, and ytqdx. In the same
year, Rubinstein showed interest in theological aspects of some variant
readings.
40
The descriptive term theological, used in the title of this
study should, according to Rubinstein, be used in a limited sense, as
denoting certain religious susceptibilities which can reasonably be
inferred from the variant readings selected for discussion.
41
All the
readings selected by him are undoubtedly of importance for
understanding the scribe, but it is often difficult to know whether the
change is intentional and therefore carries theological implications. Thus,
the following change has undoubtedly been made on the basis of the
context:
Isa 45:7 MT [r arwbw wl h[ (= V, T)
I make prosperity and I create disaster.
1QIsa
a
[r hrwbw bwf hw[
I make the good and I create the evil.
We need not go as far as Rubinstein, who sees in this reading an
affirmation of the doctrine of the sectaries of Qumran, who held that

also at other levels. The second scribe wrote with a fuller orthography than the first one;
note, for example, the preponderance of the shorter form of the second person singular
masculine suffix in the first part of the scroll compared with the longer form in the second
part, as described in detail by Martin, The Use (see n. 28 above). The second scribe
corrected more gutturals than scribe A. See R. L. Giese, Further Evidence for the Bisection
of 1QIs
a
, Textus 14 (1988) 6170. See further W. H. Brownlee, The Literary Significance of
the Bisection of Isaiah in the Ancient Scroll of Isaiah from Qumran, Proceedings of the 25th
Congress of Orientalists (Moscow, 19621963) 4317; K. H. Richards, A Note on the
Bisection of Isaiah, RevQ 5 (1965) 2578; J. Cook, The Dichotomy of 1QIsa
a
, in
Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Jzef Tadeusz Milik (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Qumranica
Mogilanensia 6; Krakw: Enigma, 1992) I.724.
38
Y. Maori, The Tradition of Pisqaot in Ancient Hebrew MSSThe Isaiah Texts and
Commentaries from Qumran, Textus 10 (1982) an; O. H. Steck, Die erste Jesajarolle von
Qumran (1QIsa): Schreibweise als Leseanleitung fr ein Prophetenbuch (SBS 173/1; Stuttgart:
Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998); idem, Bemerkungen zur Abschnittgliederung in den
Jesaja-Handschriften aus der Wste Juda, in Die Textfunde vom Toten Meer und der Text der
Hebrischen Bibel (ed. U. Dahmen et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000) 51
88.
39
J. V. Chamberlain, The Functions of God as Messianic Titles in the Complete Qumran
Isaiah Scroll, VT 5 (1955) 36672.
40
A. Rubinstein, The Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings in the Isaiah Scroll,
JSS 6 (1955) 187200.
41
Rubinstein, The Theological Aspect, 187.
8 CHAPTER FIVE
both good and evil are created by God and that the morally good or bad
in human conduct is predetermined by Him, at least for the duration of
the period preceding the ultimate visitation.
42
Talmon likewise
discussed the exegetical aspects of several readings.
43
According to van
der Kooij, the readings of this scroll, as of any other biblical text, need to
be viewed not as reflecting occasional and unrelated exegesis, but as
exponents of a more or less coherent exegetical system within each
pericope (cf. e.g. his analysis of 8:4-11),
44
certainly in those places in
which the paragraph division in 1QIsa
a
differs from that of MT.
45
A
similar approach underlies the text-critical commentary of Barthlemy.
46

A special type of content exegesis in this scroll, as well as in the LXX, is
recognized by Koenig, who describes at length the background of small
pluses in the scroll.
47
These are not just incidental scribal pluses, but they
reflect a refined system of what the author names hermneutique
analogique, and which links certain texts internally, similar to the
rabbinic gezerah shavah.
When focusing on 1QIsa
a
, we note a number of special features that
have been alluded to above in the studies written on various aspects of
the scroll. Some of these are characteristic of this scroll, while others are
not. Thus the orthographic and morphological features of the scroll are
characteristic several biblical texts (see below). Characteristic features of
this scroll are:
a. The division of the scroll into two segments (Isaiah 134 and 3566),
written by two different scribes. Scribe B started with col. XXVIII, at the
beginning of a new sheet. Although two or more hands are visible in
other Qumran scrolls (1QH
a
, 1QpHab, 11QT
a
), in no other source is the

42
Rubinstein, The Theological Aspect, 194. Besides, it has not yet been established that
a Qumran scribe inserted sectarian readings in a biblical scroll. See chapter 10*, n. 55.
43
S. Talmon, DSIa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah, ASTI 1 (1962)
6272 = idem, The World of Qumran from Within (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989) 13141; idem,
Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of the Qumran Manuscripts,
Textus 4 (1964) 95132.
44
A. van der Kooij, 1QIsa
a
Col. VIII, 411 (Isa 8, 11-18): A Contextual Approach of its
Variants, RevQ 13 (1988) 56981.
45
Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen (see n. 31). See further the previous note. For
examples of exegesis underlying different paragraph divisions, see Hgenhaven, The First
Isaiah Scroll, 289 (see n. 27 above).
46
Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, 3.
47
J. Koenig, L'Hermneutique analogique du Judasme antique d'aprs les tmoins textuels
d'Isae (VTSup 33; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982). See my review in Bib 65 (1984) 11821, and that
of A. van der Kooij, Accident or Method: On Analogical Interpretation in the Old
Testament Greek of Isaiah and in 1QIs
a
, BibOr 43 (1986) 36676. The special importance of
the pluses in the Isaiah scroll based on other verses was recognized by Skehan, The
Qumran Manuscripts, 150.
TEXT OF ISAIAH AT QUMRAN 9

text so neatly divided as in 1QIsa
a
: Scribe A left three lines empty at the
end of col. XXVII, at the end of a sheet, the last one written by him.
Scribe B started at the beginning of the next sheet with col. XXVIII (Isa
34:136:2). It is unlikely that the two scribes worked concurrently, since it
would have been difficult for the first scribe to calculate how many
columns and sheets he would need for his assignment.
48
Several scholars
accepted the assumption of bisection, while others maintained that the
two segments of that scroll were written by the same scribe.
49
However,
the assumption of the bipartition of the scroll seems to be defensible not
only at the paleographical level, but also on other levels. The second
scribe adopted a fuller orthography than the first,
50
corrected more
gutturals than scribe A (Giese, Further Evidence), used specific scribal
marks, and left out more sections than the first scribe, to be filled in
subsequently by a different hand in small letters between the lines and in
the margin: cols. XXXII 14 (Isa 38:21), XXXIII 7 (Isa 40:7) and XXXIII 14
(Isa 40:14)for more details, see chapter 5*, n. 15.
b. Unusual marginal signs occurring in various places in the scroll,
not all of them understandable,
51
are in three cases almost identical to
signs in 1QS.
52
They were probably produced by the same scribe, that is,
the person who inserted the corrections in the Isaiah scroll and wrote the
text of 1QS (as well as 1QSa, 1QSb, and 4QSam
c
).
53
Some of these scribal
markings are letters in the paleo-Hebrew script, while others are similar
to letters in the Cryptic A script.
54
In 1QIsa
a
, they may refer to the
sectarian reading of certain passages,
55
or to matters of sectarian interest.

48
For an analysis of the features of the two scribal hands of Isaiah, see M. Noth, Eine
Bemerkung zur Jesajarolle vom Toten Meer, VT 1 (1951) 2246; Kuhl,
Schreibereigentmlichkeiten (see n. 29 above) esp. 3323; Brownlee, Literary
Significance (see n. 37); Richards, Note (see n. 37); Giese, Further Evidence (see n. 37);

Cook, Dichotomy (see n. 37); M. Abegg, 1QIsa
a
and 1QIsa
b
: A Rematch in The Bible as
Book, 2218 (statistics of different orthographic systems); P. Pulikottil, Transmission of
Biblical Texts in QumranThe Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsa
a
(JSOTSup 34; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 1820; Tov, Scribal Practices, 21.
49
See n. 37.
50
Note, for example, the preponderance of the shorter form of the second person
singular masculine suffix in the first part of the scroll as against the longer form in the
second part, as described in detail by M. Martin, The Use . . .. Furthermore, in the second
part of the scroll yk is consistently written plene (ayk), but only in twenty percent of the
instances in the first part.
51
Several of the signs, if not most of them, indicate the division of the text into sense
units, even though the system is not carried out consistently.
52
Scribal Practices, 3615.
53
See E. Ulrich, 4QSam
c
: A Fragmentary Manuscript of 2 Samuel 1415 from the Scribe
of the Serek Hayyahad (1QS), BASOR 235 (1979) 125.
54
Scribal Practices, 3615.
55
Thus already Burrows, Dead Sea Scrolls, XVI.
10 CHAPTER FIVE
In any event, since the identification of the so-called Cryptic A script for
the use of sectarian texts is solid (chapter 27*, n. 17), it is now clear that at
least some of the Qumran texts were either used by the Qumran
community or copied by its scribes.
c. The copyist of 1QIsa
a
produced a carelessly and irregularly written
copy that was full of errors. Many of these errors were corrected, and, in
fact, of all the Qumran texts, this one contains the largest proportion of
corrections, viz. an average of one scribal intervention to every four lines
of text.
56
All the corrections in this scroll, as in all other scrolls from the
Judean Desert, were made on the basis of the scribes Vorlage, his
orthographic system, or his insights. In the texts reflecting a system of
orthography and morphology different from MT, as in the case of
1QIsa
a
, several corrections distance them further from MT. These
corrections were presumably not made on the basis of an external source,
but rather according to an orthographic framework the scribe had in
mind, inconsistent though it may have been. At the same time, 1QIsa
a
also contains several corrections toward a text identical to the proto-
Masoretic text. As these corrections agree with MT, while others bring
the text into disagreement with MT, the assumption that the corrections
were based on an external source is very unlikely. 1QIsa
a
was corrected
both by the original scribe and a later hand, probably in accordance with
the manuscript from which this scroll was originally copied.
d. The scribe of 1QIsa
a
was more influenced by Aramaic than most
other Qumran scribes.
57
A relatively sizeable number of Aramaisms is
found in 4QCant
b
that is written in a different orthographic
convention.
58

e. The scribe of 1QIsa
a
changed many details in accord with the
context.
59

f. The numerous phonetic variants in 1QIsa
a
gave rise to speculation
that this and other scrolls were not produced by conventional copying
from another text, but rather by dictation.
60
It is not impossible that some
scribes were dictated to or that mass production (dictating to several
scribes simultaneously) took place, but there is no evidence supporting

56
Scribal Practices, Appendix 8, col. 10.
57
See the elaborate description by Kutscher, Isaiah.
58
DJD XVI, 20518.
59
See TCHB, 11011 as well as two brief articles by A. Rubinstein (see n. 28) that
illustrate this point. In his 1954 article, Rubinstein exemplifies the adaptation of small
grammatical elements in 1QIsa
a
to the parallel stich, and in his 1953 article he exemplifies
the simplification of the tense system.
60
Thus Burrows, Orthography, Morphology, 196 (see n. 28 above); Orlinsky,
Studies, 165 (see n. 17 above).
TEXT OF ISAIAH AT QUMRAN 11

this view. Phonetic variation does not necessarily prove this assumption,
since any scribe copying from another document could make phonetic
mistakes or change the orthography, consciously or not.
61

g. The division of 1QIsa
a
into sense units was analyzed in detail by
Bardke,
62
Oesch,
63
and Maori.
64
The studies by Oesch and Maori show
that in 80 percent of the cases, 1QIsa
a
agrees with the medieval MT
(manuscripts A and C).
h. The typological similarity between 1QIsa
a
and the Severus Scroll
was described by Kutscher, Language, and Siegel, The Severus Scroll (see
n. 35). Both sources were dubbed vulgar by these scholars. According
to Kutscher, 1QIsa
a
was a personal copy used for study, home reading,
and perhaps in the synagogue, while MT reflected the standard text used
in Palestine.
65

4. The Text of Isaiah at Qumran
When trying to locate information concerning the textual transmission of
Isaiah as viewed from the Qumran texts, we should lower our level of
expectation:
a. There are many gaps in our information regarding the period
covered by the Qumran manuscripts (middle of the third century BCE
until the middle of the first century CE), both concerning the Qumran
text(s) and the texts extant in Palestine as a whole. There could have been
widely divergent texts of Isaiah both at Qumran and elsewhere that by
chance were not preserved.
b. As far as we know, no patterns of textual transmission developed
that were specific to the special contents of any single biblical book.
Therefore, it is probably mere coincidence that among the Prophetical
Books texts written in the Qumran scribal practice were preserved for
Isaiah (1QIsa
a
and 4QIsa
c
) and Jeremiah (2QJer), but not for Ezekiel.
c. When describing the texts of Isaiah, we are confronted with the
special circumstance that the MT and the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX
were close to each other. Even though the LXX translation often differs
much from MT, our analysis of the translators exegesis and his

61
Thus already E. Hammershaimb, On the Method Applied in the Copying of
Manuscripts in Qumran, VT 9 (1959) 4158.
62
H. Bardke, Die Parascheneinteilung der Jesajarolle I, in Festschrift Franz Dornseiff zum
65. Geburtstag (ed. H. Kusch; Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1953) 3375.
63
J. M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma, Untersuchungen zu einer berlieferten Gliederung im
hebrischen Text des Alten Testaments (OBO 27; Freiburg/Gttingen: Universittsverlag/
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 20048.
64
Maori, Tradition (see n. 38).
65
Kutscher, Language, 7789.
12 CHAPTER FIVE
translation techniques leads us to believe that the translator often
deviated from his parent text, when that was probably very close to MT.
The practical result of this situation is that the Qumran texts are
compared with the combined evidence of the MT and LXX, although
occasionally a Qumran text contains a reading found in the LXX and not
in MT, or vice versa.
Comparison of Isaiah in MT and LXX
Any comparative analysis of the Isaiah texts is based on the fact that the
amount of variation between the texts is relatively limited. The known
textual data for Isaiah point to a picture of textual unity, more than in the
Torah and much more than in the other two comparable books of the
Prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The main textual feature recognizable
for the Isaiah texts is the existence of two different scribal traditions,
visible in differences in the areas of orthography, morphology, and
scribal habits, represented in MT and some Qumran texts.
a. The MT group. Most of the Qumran texts of Isaiah reflect the same
consonantal framework as the medieval MT. This group of texts is
named the MT group, although it is difficult to determine exactly
which texts should be included and which should not. A good example
of this group is 1QIsa
b
, which presents a relatively extensive text for
comparison with MT (from chapter 38 to the end of the book, with some
gaps). Its readings were first listed by S. Loewinger,
66
and the differences
between 1QIsa
b
and 1QIsa
a
were analyzed by Barthlemy.
67
When
comparing 1QIsa
b
, dating from the first century BCE, with codex L
written one thousand years later, one easily recognizes the close relation
between the two texts that are sometimes almost identical. Thus on p. 7 =
plate 9 (Isa 50:751:10 [13 verses]) of this scroll in the Sukenik edition,
one finds only four differences in minor details and two differences in
orthography (our reading differs from that of Sukenik), as analyzed
elsewhere.
68

The close relation between 1QIsa
b
and the medieval text can also be
expressed in terms of types of differences between the two. When
examining all the fragments of 1QIsa
b
, which comprises segments of 46

66
S. Loewinger, The Variants of DSI II, VT 4 (1954) 15563.
67
Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, ciicviii.
68
Tov, TCHB, 31. Few Qumran texts are closer to the medieval text than 1QIsa
b
. At the
same time, 4QGen
b
, published in DJD XII, is virtually identical to the medieval text.
TEXT OF ISAIAH AT QUMRAN 13

chapters, we find the following types of features in the scroll that
represent differences from codex L, all of which concern minutiae:
69

Orthography 107
Addition of conjunctive waw 16
Lack of conjunctive waw 13
Article 4
Differences in letters 10
Missing letters 5
Differences in number 14
Differences in pronouns 6
Different grammatical forms 24
Different prepositions 9
Different words 11
Minuses of words 5
Pluses of words 6
Different sequence 4
Roberts therefore correctly stated in 1959: The almost complete absence
of textual variants is the clearest indication of the close affinity between
the two text-forms, for in one instance only can a case be made for a
significant variant reading. It is in 53.11.
70
The detailed analysis of
Barthlemy
71
shows clearly that 1QIsa
b
is closely aligned with MT, from
which 1QIsa
a
deviates, not only in orthography, but also in some content
variants. Garbinis claim
72
that this scroll is actually not of a Masoretic
character is therefore unfounded.
73
According to Barthlemy, the initial
text of 1QIsa
b
, as well as that of MurIsa, was corrected several times
towards the text that would later become MT.
74


69
Quoted from M. Cohen, hydyh bdbr qdwsht hnwsh lwtywtyw wbyqwrt htkst, Deoth 47
(1978) 83101 = The Bible and Us (ed. U. Simon; Heb.; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1979) 4269. See also
TCHB, 313.
70
B. J. Roberts, The Second Isaiah Scroll from Qumrn (1QIs
b
), BJRL 42 (1959) 13244.
The quotation is from p. 134.
71
Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, ciicxvi.
72
G. Garbini, 1QIsa
b
et le texte dIsae, Hen 6 (1984) 1721.
73
Against the majority view regarding the character of 1QIsa
b
, Garbini suggested that
this scroll is quite remote from MT.

In order to prove this point, Garbini adduced a list of
seven differences in single words and the omission of 38:13 as well as of the end/beginning
of 60:19/20. In addition, a calculation of the number of lines per column leads the author to
believe that some thirty verses of Isaiah were missing in the scroll. However, Barthlemy,
Critique textuelle, ciiciii refutes this view as being based on imprecise data and
methodologically incorrect suppositions.
74
Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, cxiii. This assumption is unlikely because the level of
disagreement between 1QIsa
b
and MurIsa on the one hand and the medieval MT on the
other is much higher than the details in which the former had presumably been corrected. It
14 CHAPTER FIVE
The close relationship between the medieval representative of MT, L,
and 1QIsa
b
is matched by almost all the texts of Isaiah from cave 4.
Indeed, in the sections in which 1QIsa
b
overlaps with 4QIsa
b
and 4QIsa
d
,
all of them are close to codex L. This generalization also pertains to the
following texts, which are close to MT and secondarily also to the LXX:
4QIsa
a
,

4QIsa
e
,

4QIsa
f
,

4QIsa
g
(of these, 4QIsa
e,f
probably differed most
from the medieval text). It also pertains to the following texts, although
they are too short for pronouncing a clear judgment: 4QIsa
h
, 4QIsa
i
,
4QIsa
j
, 4QIsa
k
, 4QIsa
l
,

4QIsa
m
, 4QIsa
n
, 4QIsa
o
, 4QpapIsa
p
, 4QIsa
q
,
4QIsa
r
.
The Qumran proto-Masoretic group ought to be investigated with
regard to possible clusters within this group regarding spelling and
content, but because of the paucity of overlapping Qumran texts, this
investigation is by nature very limited. A possible clustering of 1QIsa
a,b

and 4QIsa
c,d
(of which 1QIsa
a
and 4QIsa
c
reflect the Qumran
orthography), against the medieval text, is visible. Such clusters, if
detected, could show how MT developed after the Qumran period. It
should thus be possible to pinpoint readings in which the medieval text
reflects a later development. Thus, in Isa 53:11, against the medieval MT
hary (wpn lm[m), two proto-Masoretic Qumran texts, 1QIsa
b
and 4QIsa
d
,
as well as 1QIsa
a
(Qumran scribal practice) and the LXX (dei'xai auj tw''''
fw'") add rwa. Seeligmann suggested that the minority reading of the
medieval MT reflects the original text.
75

b. The LXX of Isaiah. Although the LXX translation often deviates
greatly from MT because of the LXXs extensive exegesis, there is no
reason to believe that its underlying Hebrew text differed much from
MT. Therefore, the list of minor agreements between the LXX and
1QIsa
a76
does not substantially alter this picture.
g. Texts Reflecting the Qumran Scribal Practice. The idiosyncrasies in
orthography, morphology, and scribal habits of 1QIsa
a
and 4QIsa
c77
set
them apart from the other Isaiah texts, but not from other Qumran
texts.
78
Contextual harmonizations abound in 1QIsa
a
, as shown in brief
studies by Rubinstein (see notes 28 and 40). This text, as well as 4QIsa
c
,
was possibly copied from one that differed little from the Isaiah scrolls

is more likely that when errors were made, the scribe or a first reader sometimes adapted
the text to the Vorlage from which the text was copied. See Scribal Practices, 2235.
75
I. L. Seeligmann, dei'xai aujtw/' fw'", Tarbiz 27 (1958) 12741 (Heb.).
76
See Ziegler, Die Vorlage (see n. 32 above); Morrow, The Text of Isaiah, 1824 (see n.
27).
77
The close connection between these two texts was already recognized by Skehan,
Qumran, Littrature de Qumran, 812.
78
See chapter 10* and Scribal Practices, 26173.
TEXT OF ISAIAH AT QUMRAN 15

from cave 4, or from 1QIsa
b
, most of which are rather close to MT. One
of the special characteristics of 4QIsa
c
is its writing of the
Tetragrammaton and other divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters.
This feature is shared with another twenty-three Qumran texts, mainly
nonbiblical.
79
4QIsa
c
, like 4QLev
g
and 4QpPs
b
, also wrote the prefixes to
the divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters (Isa 26:4; 44:5); this text
stands alone in writing also the suffixes of elohim in paleo-Hebrew
characters (Isa 51:15; 52:10; 55:5).
Of special interest is the comparison of 1QIsa
a
and 4QIsa
c
in
overlapping passages. These two texts reflect a similar orthographical
and linguistic system, but they differ in details.
80
These differences are
not surprising since both texts are to some degree internally inconsistent
with regard to orthography and language. Thus the second part of
1QIsa
a
is more plene than the first part. Accordingly, in the first part of
that book, 4QIsa
c
usually is more plene than 1QIsa
a
, while in the second
part (cols. XXVIII ff. of 1QIsa
a
) the two are closer to each other.
The Qumran Scrolls and Literary Criticism
There has been no evidence in any of the scrolls to either prove or
disprove the existence of two different segments, Isaiah and Second
Isaiah, and in fact the scrolls derive from too late a period in order to
contain evidence of this type. The writing of 1QIsa
a
by two scribes
(Isaiah 134 and 3566) cannot be taken as evidence in this regard, since
it reflects a mere scribal convenience to subdivide the book into two
equal parts.
On the basis of the addition in 1QIsa
a
of what constitutes 38:21-22 in
MT, it has been suggested by some scholars that these two verses in MT
and other witnesses constitute a late editorial addition to the book.
81

5. Conclusion
The Qumran scrolls of Isaiah add textual data to what was known before
their discovery, and this information is as a rule of great importance for

79
For a detailed analysis of the writing of the different divine names in paleo-Hebrew,
see Scribal Practices, 23846 (with references to earlier literature).
80
For example, in one column, 1QIsa
a
XVIIIXIX // 4QIsa
c
frgs. 9ii, 11, 12i, 52 (Isa 23:8
24:15), the two scribes agree 20 times against MT in their fuller orthography, and three
times in linguistic variations. At the same time, they disagree among each other 14 times in
matters of orthography, and twice in linguistic variations.
81
S. Talmon, The Textual Study of the BibleA New Outlook, in Qumran and the
History of the Biblical Text (ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge, Mass./London:
Harvard University Press, 1976) 32832; Y. Zakovitch, Assimilation in Biblical Narratives,
in Empirical Models, 17596; see also the discussion in TCHB, 34042.
16 CHAPTER FIVE
our understanding of the textual transmission of the book and its
exegesis. As expected, all the sources of Isaiah differ from each other, but
their level of differentiation is not very high. The number of proto-
Masoretic texts is remarkable (see chapter 10*). If the two texts written in
the Qumran scribal practice, 1QIsa
a
and 4QIsa
c
, were copied from a text
like the proto-Masoretic texts, they ultimately reflect the same textual
family. This pertains also to the Hebrew parent text of the LXX.
Therefore, the known texts of Isaiah do not differ from each other
recensionally.
82


82
We therefore agree with the 1957 statement of Skehan, The Qumran Manuscripts,
150: For Isaias, the complete scroll from cave 1 remains textually the most interesting
document, and there is nothing among the 13 manuscripts of cave 4 which is recensionally
different from the received consonantal text, or yields improved readings in any significant
degree.





CHAPTER SIX

REWRITTEN BIBLE COMPOSITIONS AND BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS,
WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION PAID TO THE
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
1. Background
This study addresses the question of the fine line between biblical
manuscripts and rewritten Bible texts, and in so doing we turn not only
to matters of definition, but also to features common to these two types
of texts.
The defining of the biblical manuscripts and rewritten Bible
compositions should not be difficult in theory since the two groups of
texts seem to be easily distinguishable from one another. However, in
practice the distinction is difficult. A biblical manuscript has an
authoritative status as Scripture, even if the manuscript is replete with
exegetical changes (additions, omissions) vis--vis earlier texts, whereas
a rewritten Bible composition does not constitute an authoritative biblical
text, but rather a new composition based on the Bible. However, the
distinction between these two groups remains difficult since it at times it
is hard to establish a manuscripts authoritative status. It is not the
amount of exegesis or deviation from MT that counts, but the purpose
behind the writing of the manuscript under investigation. Thus, the
various texts of Jeremiah (MT, the Vorlage of the LXX, Qumran texts from
caves 2 and 4) are biblical, and in spite of the major differences among
them, they remain within the biblical realm. The exact relation between
the different manuscripts is subject to constant discussion among
scholars, but all agree that these are biblical texts. Thus, the pre-
Samaritan texts and SP reflect much content exegesis vis--vis the earlier
texts, and they constitute a greatly edited text. However, they were
considered authoritative by the Samaritan community as well as the
Qumran community, whose writings were sometimes based on them
(4QTest and 4QJub). Likewise, the proto-Masoretic texts, which
contained only a low level of exegesis vis--vis earlier texts, had an
authoritative status in Temple circles from a certain period onwards (see
2 CHAPTER SIX
chapter 12*). By the same token, the Hebrew compositions translated by
the LXX translators such as 1 Kings and Esther were considered
authoritative by these translators and by the community in which they
lived. Likewise, the Greek translation itself enjoyed such an authoritative
status.
1

This leads to the question of how to distinguish between authoritative
biblical texts reflecting content exegesis, and texts that are no longer
considered biblical. How do we define a manuscript that resembles a
biblical text but was not considered authoritative? The dividing line
between biblical and nonbiblical texts was not as fixed as we would like
to believe. Three types of non-authoritative texts have a close relation to
Hebrew Scripture and can easily be confused with Scripture texts.
a. Liturgical texts composed of biblical sections or combinations of
biblical and nonbiblical sections are rather numerous among the Qumran
texts. The best-known examples are 11QPs
a
and such Torah texts as
4QDeut
n
and 4QDeut
j
.
2

b. Abbreviated and excerpted biblical texts were prepared for special
purposes that are not always clear to us. Some of these collections were
liturgical, such as the previously mentioned group. Others probably
reflected a literary preference, such as 4QDeut
q
that contains only the
song of Deuteronomy 32, and the abbreviated texts of Canticles
contained in two excerpted manuscripts, 4QCant
a,b
.
3

c. Rewritten Bible texts are newly created literary compositions that to a
great extent overlap with biblical manuscripts. The definition of what
constitutes a rewritten Bible text is less clear now than it was a few years
ago. Before the Qumran texts were found, scholars were aware of a series
of rewritten biblical texts of very diverse nature. Foremost among them
is the book of Jubilees. Pseudo-Philo created another rewritten text, as
did Josephus in his rewritten story of Hebrew Scripture in Jewish
Antiquities. Beyond these texts, we now know from Qumran an
additional group of rewritten Bible texts, all fragmentary, ranging from
compositions changing the biblical text only minimally to those
compositions in which the substratum of the biblical text is only seldom
visible, since the text was completely rewritten. Each composition is a
unicum with regard to its approach to the Bible and the act of rewriting.
The second half of 11QT
a
(cols. LILXVI) only changed the biblical text to
a small extent (see chapter 2*), while a much greater degree of change is
visible in the Jubilees texts from cave 4, 4QExposition on the Patriarchs

1
On all these issues, see chapter 20* and Tov, Many Forms.
2
See chapter 4*.
3
See ibid.
REWRITTEN BIBLE COMPOSITIONS AND BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS 3
(4Q464), 4QCommGen (4Q252254a), and in the various compositions
that have the component apocryphon or pseudo- as part of their title
(see DJD XIII, XIX, XXII).
A major question that needs to be asked with regard to these
rewritten texts is whether or to what extent their writers or readers
considered them to be authoritative biblical texts. The modern
nomenclature rewritten biblical text seems to exclude the possibility
that these texts were considered authoritative, but we are not certain that
this was the case in each instance.
4
Possibly the author or readers of such
a text, or both, considered the rewritten text to be authoritative, for
example Jubilees and 11QT
a
. This possibility can neither be proven nor
disproved, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the assumption
that one or more of the mentioned texts were considered as authoritative
as texts that we consider to be authoritative biblical manuscripts. It has,
for example, been noticed that in the Qumran community writings, the
books of the Torah and most of the books of the Prophets are quoted as
authoritative Scripture,
5
together with some of the Hagiographa, and the
book of Jubilees. That book is quoted expressly in CD 16:23: As for the
exact determination of their times to which Israel turns a blind eye,
behold it is strictly defined in the Book of the Divisions of the Times into
their Jubilees and Weeks.
6
Besides, fifteen or sixteen copies of this book
have been found at Qumran, thus proving that it was popular among the
Qumranites. The book is written as authoritative Scripture, with God
announcing Israels future to Moses on Sinai. A similar claim of
authority is implicit in the Temple Scroll, in which Israels laws are
rewritten according to biblical pericopes, and Deuteronomy is rewritten
in cols. LILXVI. It refers to God in the first person thereby lending
greater authority to its contents, as compared with the third person used
in the Bible. The book is known from five Qumran manuscripts (three

4
For a discussion, see M. J. Bernstein, Rewritten Bible: A Generic Category Which Has
Outlived its Usefulness?, Textus 22 (2005) 16996 (p. 181: One persons reworked Bible is
anothers Bible); F. Garca Martnez, Las fronteras de lo Bblico, Scripta Theologica 23
(19911993) 75984; J. G. Campbell, Rewritten Bible and Parabiblical Texts: A
Terminological and Ideological Critique, in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings
of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8-10th September 2003 (ed. J. G. Campbell et
al.; Library of Second Temple Studies 52; London: T & T Clark International, 2005) 4368.
5
For a useful table of these references, see J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994) 1512. For a longer list and an innovative analysis,
see A. Lange, From Literature to ScriptureThe Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew
Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library, in Canon from Biblical, Theological, and
Philosophical Perspectives (ed. C. Helmer and C. Landmesser; Oxford: University Press, 2004)
51107.
6
See VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 154 (see n. 5).
4 CHAPTER SIX
from cave 11, and two from cave 4),
7
a number that is probably large
enough to assume its popularity at Qumran. It is less clear whether this
composition is quoted in the Qumran writings, unless the enigmatic Sefer
he-Hagu refers to this work.
8

Against this background, this chapter focuses on the rewriting in
some of the authoritative manuscripts of the Bible. We focus on the
Torah, because the ancients were more active in the Torah than in the
other books.
9

The rewriting in the pre-Samaritan texts and SP (henceforth: the SP
group) has been stressed less in the discussion of rewritten Bible texts.
This aspect is analyzed in detail in the following discussion.
2. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Pre-Samaritan Texts
While the rewritten Bible texts inserted new elements into the previously
known biblical text, the SP group copied existing biblical passages in
new locations. In order to highlight the differences between the two
types of texts, this feature of the SP group is analyzed here in detail.
Since the pre-Samaritan texts are known only fragmentarily, the
analysis of the SP group focuses on SP, with constant reference to the
pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran. This procedure is legitimate, since in
their editorial changes the members of the SP group are almost identical
(see below, 3). The extensive content editing of the SP group has been
analyzed at length by Tigay as background material for the analysis of
the documentary hypothesis of the Torah.
10
It is equally relevant to
compare SP with the rewritten biblical texts, since the changes of SP that
have been presented as harmonizing changes should actually be
conceived of as exponents of content editing.
11
This type of editing,
which is a form of rewriting, is discussed next, while the following two
caveats should be kept in mind:

7
11QT
a,b,c
, 4Q365a, and 4Q524.
8
4QReworked Pentateuch, published as a rewritten Bible text, probably should be
reclassified as an exegetical biblical text and hence need not be mentioned in this context.
See chapter 20*, E and Tov, Many Forms.
9
See my study The Scribal and Textual Transmission of the Torah Analyzed in Light of
Its Sanctity, forthcoming.
10
J. H. Tigay, Conflation as a Redactional Technique, in idem, Empirical Models, 5396.
11
Harmonizing is indeed an important aspect of the SP group, which adapted several
details in the same or parallel stories; see TCHB, 88. These harmonizing readings have been
considered so central by some scholars, that E. Eshel used this term to characterize the SP
group as a whole (harmonistic texts), see E. Eshel, 4QDeut
n
A Text That Has
Undergone Harmonistic Editing, HUCA 62 (1991) 11754.
REWRITTEN BIBLE COMPOSITIONS AND BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS 5
a. In its present form, SP is a sectarian text incorporating the
Samaritan belief in the site of Mount Gerizim as the central place of
worship. This belief is expressed by the addition of a tenth, Samaritan
commandment to the Decalogue, enabled by the moving of the first
commandment to the Decalogue preamble,
12
and a small change in the
centralization formula in the book of Deuteronomy.
13
The sectarian
nature of SP seemingly prohibits its objective analysis within the present
analysis, but when this very slight sectarian layer is removed, its
underlying base can easily be recognized as a pre-sectarian text.
b. The pre-Samaritan Qumran texts are known only fragmentarily,
although the preserved fragments give us good insights into the shape of
Exodus and Numbers, the two most important books for the content
rewriting of these texts. The two best-preserved texts, 4QpaleoExod
m

and 4QNum
b
, are relatively extensive, and in fact the former is one of the
best-preserved biblical texts from Qumran; 4QExod-Lev
f
is less
extensively preserved. The pre-Samaritan text was also used by 4QTest
and 4QJub, rendering our knowledge of this group rather firm.
In their major characteristics, the pre-SP texts and SP usually agree
against all other textual witnesses (see below, 3). For the sake of
convenience, the analysis will therefore focus on the only complete text
in this group, SP, with constant reference to the preserved readings of
the pre-SP texts.
We now turn to the central characteristics of the texts under
discussion:
a. The SP group reflects a great amount of content editing.
b. The editing involved is of a specific nature, meant to impart a more
perfect and internally consistent structure to the text.
c. The editing is inconsistent, that is, certain details were changed,
while others, similar in nature, were left untouched.
When trying to formulate the areas in which the SP group inserted
changes, we note that the editor was especially attentive to what he

12
The commandment is made up entirely of verses occurring elsewhere in the Torah:
Deut 11:29a, Deut 27:2b-3a, Deut 27:4a, Deut 27:5-7, Deut 11:30in that sequence in the SP
(Exodus and Deuteronomy). The addition includes the reading of the SP in Deut 27:4
Mount Gerizim instead of Mount Ebal as in most other texts as the name of the place
where the Israelites were commanded to erect their altar after crossing the Jordan.
13
This change pertains to the frequent Deuteronomic formulation hwhy rjby ra wqmh,
the site which the Lord will choose. This reference to an anonymous site in Palestine
actually envisioned Jerusalem, but that city could not be mentioned in Deuteronomy since
it had not yet been conquered at the time of Moses discourse. From the Samaritan
perspective, however, Shechem had already been chosen at the time of the patriarchs (Gen
12:6; Gen 33:18-20), so that the future form will choose needed to be changed to a past
form rjb, has chosen. See, e.g., Deut 12:5, 14.
6 CHAPTER SIX
considered to be imperfections within units and between units. What
disturbed the editor especially was the incongruence according to a
formalistic view of Scripturebetween details within and between
specific stories. In this regard, special attention was paid to the
presentation of the spoken word, especially by God, which was repeated
when the reviser considered it important.
i. The story of the ten plagues. In this story, the SP group harmonized
the description of Gods commands to Moses and Aaron to warn
Pharaoh before each plague by adding a detailed account of their
execution. Systematic additions of the execution of these commands are
found in Exodus 711.
14
These additions are not exclusive to these texts,
as shown, for example, by a similar addition in LXX
Luc
and the Peshitta
in 1 Sam 9:3.
ii. Moses summarizing speech in Deuteronomy 13. With pedantic
precision, the editor compared the details of this speech with the
preceding books of the Torah and, where needed, added them in Exodus
and Numbers according to a very precise framework of interpretation.
For a detailed analysis, see below.
iii. The genealogical framework of Genesis 11 was streamlined by the
addition of summaries of the number of years that each person lived.
iv. The Decalogue. Beyond the addition of a further commandment (see
n. 12 above), SP (thus also 4QRP
a
[4Q158] and 4QTest) added a section of
laws (Deut 18:15-22) to the account in Deuteronomy that expressly
mentioned the giving of that specific law at Sinai (named Horeb in
Deuteronomy).
v. Sundry small segments were inserted in the text in order to perfect
the framework of certain stories.
15

At the same time, the text could have been exegetically changed in a
similar fashion in many additional pericopes that were not reworked. It
is hard to know why certain units were altered as described above, while
others were not, and the only explanation for this phenomenon is the
personal taste of the editor. A major area in which the text was not
touched is that of the laws, which were, as a rule, not harmonized to one
another. Thus, differences between parallel laws were not canceled by
harmonizing additions or changes. As in the rabbinic tradition, these
differences were accepted as referring to different situations.

14
It is characteristic of the style of the biblical narrative to relate commands in great
detail, while their fulfillment is mentioned only briefly, with the words . . . and he (etc.)
did as . . . Often in the SP, the execution of such commands is also elaborated on with a
repetition of the details of the command. These additions reflect the editorial desire to
stress that the command had indeed been carried out. For examples, see chapter 20*, n. 103.
15
For examples, see TCHB, 88.
REWRITTEN BIBLE COMPOSITIONS AND BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS 7
By the same token, the second part of Moses speech in Deuteronomy,
chapters 411, was not treated in the same way as the first part. While
each statement in chapters 13 was scrutinized and, when considered
necessary, repeated in Exodus and Numbers, this was not done for Deut
5:19-30 nor for the details in chapter 9 with the exception of 9:20,
repeated in SP and 4QpaleoExod
m
in Exod 32:10.
Likewise, in many individual stories no attention was paid to the
exact matching of a command with its execution, as was done in the
beginning chapters of Exodus. For example, the command at the
beginning of Genesis 22 was not repeated in the form of an action. It is
unclear why the story of Exodus 711 was singled out for such extensive
editing. It may well be that the already schematic framework of these
chapters encouraged the reviser to greater perfection, while in most
other cases such a framework was lacking. However, by the same token,
the creation story could have been made more symmetrical in SP by
adding the exact execution of each of Gods commands.
3. The Reworking of Deuteronomy 13 in the SP Group
Together with the story of Exodus 711, Moses first speech in
Deuteronomy 13 was the single most central issue on which the editor
of the SP group focused. Each item in that speech was scrutinized, and if
it did not occur explicitly in Exodus or Numbers, it was repeated in the
earlier books as foreshadowers of Deuteronomy. The details are
recorded in the following table.
16


1 2 3 4 5 6 7


16
The numbering system of the added verses in the SP follows the editions of Tal,
Samaritan Pentateuch and A. F. von Gall, Der hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, vols. IV
(Giessen: Tpelmann, 19141918). In both editions, the added verses were given additional
numbers, but not in that of Sadaqa, in which the additional verses were marked
typographically by printing in a larger font: Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version.
According to the additional number system, the additional verse is denoted below as b,
and the existing one as a, e.g. Num 10:10a in the edition of the SP equals 10:10 of MT,
while 10:b is the additional verse of the SP (that is, a plus in the SP based on the MT of Deut
1:6-8). We follow Tals numbering system that differs in one detail from that of von Gall. In
the latter edition, in some cases the additional verse was named a when it preceded an
existing verse named b. Thus, in von Galls edition, the added verse in the SP to Num
14:41a (= MT of Deut 1:42) has been placed before 14:42 which was named 14:42b.
8 CHAPTER SIX
Deut Source
(speech
indicated by
italics)
Topic Found
elsewhere in
Torah
Added
elsewhere in SP
Addition in
Qumran
texts
17

Notes

1:1-5 Introduction Geographic
description

1:6-8 Divine speech
on Horeb
The Israelites
to leave
immediately
to conquer
Canaan
Num 10:10b Just before
the Israelites
left Horeb/
Sinai
1:9-18 Moses Appointment
of judges
Exod 18 Exod 18:24b,
25b
4Qpaleo-
Exod
m

Duplicates
18:17-26,
though not
formally
1:19 Travel
description

1:20-23a Moses Sending of
spies
Num 13 Num 12:16b
(before 13:1)
[4QNum
b
] Duplicates
Num 13,
though not
formally
1:23b-26 Sending of
spies
Num 13
1:27-28 People Complaint
about results
of spies
mission
Num 14 Num 13:33b
(before 14:1)
Duplicates
Num 14
1:29-33 Moses Answer to
complaint
Num 13:33b
(before 14:1)
Duplicates
Num 14
1:34-40 Divine Peoples
punishment
Num 14:20-
35

1:41 People Israelites
ascend
mountain to
fight
Num 14:40
1:42 Divine Israelites told
not to fight
Num 14:42-
43
Num 14:40b Duplicates
Num 14:42-
43, though
not formally
1:43-44a Battle details Num 14:44-
45

1:44b Battle simile Num 14:45b
1:45-46 Historical
description
Num 20:1
2:1 Israelites
encircle
Num 21:4

17
When this column is empty, no evidence is available for the fragmentary Qumran
scrolls. Negative evidence (that is, when a scroll does not reflect an addition found in the
SP) is indicated explicitly. Reconstructed evidence is included in square brackets.
REWRITTEN BIBLE COMPOSITIONS AND BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS 9
Edom
2:2-6 Divine Israelites told
to pass
through
Edom
Num 20:13b 4QNum
b

2:7 Divine (Same topic
continued)
[not in SP] (not in
4QNum
b
)

2:8 Israelites
move to
Moab
Num 21:11
2:9 Divine Israelites told
not to trouble
Moab
Num 21:11b 4QNum
b

2:10-12 Historical
digression

2:13 Divine Israelites told
to pass Zered
Num 21:12
2:14-16 Historical
digression

2:17-19 Divine Israelites told
not to pass
through
Ammon
Num 21:12b 4QNum
b

2:20-23 Historical
digression

2:24-25 Divine Israelites told
to pass over
Arnon and
start war
Num 21:20b 4QNum
b

2:26-27 People Israelites ask
to pass
through
Sihons
territory
Num 21:21-
22
Num 21:22b
(partial)

2:28-29 People Israelites ask
to buy food
from Sihon
Num 21:22b [4QNum
b
]
2:30 Sihon refused
request
Num 21:23
2:31 Divine Promise to
give Sihon
into the
Israelites
hands
Num 21:23b [4QNum
b
]
2:32-37 Israelites win
victory over
Moab
Num 21:24-
26

3:1-7 Defeat of Og Num 21:33-
35

3:8-13 Historical Num 21:24-
10 CHAPTER SIX
digression 25, 33-35
3:14-17 Territory
allotted to
two-and-a-
half tribes
Num 32:41
3:18-20 Moses Two-and-a-
half tribes
told to assist
brethren in
Canaan
conquest
Num 32:
17,20,21

3:21-22 Moses Encourageme
nt to Joshua
Num 27:23b 4QNum
b

3:23-26 Moses Request to
enter Israel
Num 20:13b
3:27-28 Divine Negative
answer

3:29 Israelites
remain in
Beth Peor

Analysis
The treatment of Deuteronomy 13 in the SP group is based on the
understanding of its components by the author of that group. With the
exception of the first five verses, chapters 13 are phrased as a speech by
Moses, but within that speech a distinction can be made between:
1. an account of events;
2. direct quote of speeches by Moses;
3. direct quote of speeches by God;
4. historical and geographical digressions.
The reviser of the text in the SP group focused on the first three
chapters of Deuteronomy that, in his mind, should have reflected an
exact summary of the events and speeches described in the earlier books.
Special attention was paid to the spoken words, mostly those of God and
Moses, recorded in these three chapters. As a rule, these spoken words
are not matched exactly by the stories in Exodus and Numbers, but even
if they are somehow reflected, they were repeated in the SP group, which
expected a verbatim repetition in the biblical text. Thus, the story of the
appointment of the judges (Deut 1:9-18) was repeated in the middle of
verses 24 and 25 of Exodus 18 since the details of the two stories differed.
In other cases in which the spoken words were not matched by the text
of Exodus and Numbers, they were repeated in the appropriate places in
these books from Deuteronomy. This pertains to all the spoken words in
these chapters, with the exception of Deut 2:7, continuing 2:2-6, and of all
other sections that, in the editors view, did not need to be repeated, that
REWRITTEN BIBLE COMPOSITIONS AND BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS 11
is the introduction (vv 1-5) and several narrative details that do not
contain speeches.
18

Some of these sections were not repeated, possibly because they were
covered somehow by narratives in Exodus and Numbers.
Basically, the editors technique was to repeat sections from Moses
speech in Deuteronomy in the previous books of the Torah as
foreshadowers of Deuteronomy. When the account of Deuteronomy was
repeated in the SP of Exodus and Numbers, it often created a peculiar
duplication that was rather unusual from a literary point of view. The
duplication created is usually not impossible at the content level, as the
reviser took care to ascribe the parallel sections to different speakers
(e.g., God/Moses), but in one case a rather impossible text was created
(Num 13:33b together with Numbers 14; see below). Several details are
mentioned in the Notes column in the table as duplications.
19


18
MT Topic
1:19 Travel from Horeb to Qadesh Barnea
1:23b-26 Sending of the spies
1:43-44a Details of the battle
1:44b Simile of the battle
1:45-46 Historical description
2:1 The Israelites encircle Edom
2:8 The Israelites move to Moab
2:10-12 Historical digression
2:14-16 Historical digression
2:20-23 Historical digression
2:30 Sihon refused request
2:32-37 The Israelites win a victory over Moab
3:1-7 Defeat of Og
3:8-13 Historical digression
3:14-17 Territory allotted to two-and-a-half tribes
3:29 The Israelites remain in Beth Peor
19
Deut 1:9-18 = Exod 18:24b, 25b SP.
The two versions of the story of the appointment of the judges in Deuteronomy 1 and
Exodus 19 differ in several details:
1. In Exodus, the idea to appoint judges originated with Jethro, while in Deuteronomy it
was suggested by Moses.
2. The requirements for the ideal judge differ in the two texts (cf. Exod 19:21 with Deut
1:13); in Exodus they stress ethical virtues, and in Deuteronomy intellectual qualities.
3. The appointment of the judges precedes the theophany at Sinai in Exodus, while in
Deuteronomy it follows that event.
On a formal level, the story is not told twice in Exodus 18 in the SP, since the main story
of Exodus in that version presents the proposal of Jethro, while the supplement from
Deuteronomy relates the executing of Jethros advice.
Deut 1:20-23a = Num 12:16b SP
The added section from Deuteronomy contains Moses words to the people describing
the dispatching of the spies, starting with his command to send them off, and continuing
with the peoples agreement to the mission. This account runs parallel to the next section in
Numbers 13, which starts all over again: Gods command to Moses to send spies (13:1-20)
12 CHAPTER SIX
Sequence
The reviser took pains to place the repeated sections in exactly the right
position in the narrative in Exodus and Numbers. Since Moses speech in
Deuteronomy more or less followed a historical sequence, the reworkers
task was not too difficult, but at times his special skills and knowledge of
the biblical text are especially noteworthy.
As in other cases, the reviser was especially sensitive to words that,
according to the text, had been uttered at Sinai and were not recorded
precisely in the present biblical text. Thus, when Deut 1:6-8 says: The
Lord our God spoke to us at Horeb saying: You have stayed long enough
at this mountain. Start out and make your way to the hill country of the
Amorites . . . , SP took care to repeat the exact content of these verses in
Num 10:10b. The reviser could have repeated this section in Exodus, but
he probably wanted to place it in the pericope in which it would be most
relevant and powerful, namely before the verses that relate the moving

and the executing of the command (13:21-33). On a formal level, there is no duplication,
since Deut 1:20-23a = Num 12:16b SP reflects the words of Moses to the people and Num
13:1ff. contains the words of God to Moses.
Deut 1:27-33 = Num 13:33b SP
The addition of this section at the end of Numbers 13 created a direct duplication of the
content of the next chapter. The addition in Num 13:33b contains the complaints of the
Israelites after the gloomy report of the spies (Deut 1:27-28) together with Moses words of
encouragement to the people, stating that God will help them (Deut 1:29-33). However, the
next section contains exactly the same episodes: the Israelites complain again (Num 14:1-4),
and listen to Moses reassuring words (Num 14:5-9), as if these episodes had not been
described at the end of the previous chapter. This repetition, and hence duplication, created
a very unusual situation at the literary level.
Deut 1: 42 = Num 14:40b SP
The added verse in the SP of Num, 14:40b, deriving from Deut 1:42, creates a duplication
with Num 14:42-43, but on a formal level there is no duplication, since the added verse in
SP, 14:40b, reports Gods words, while the repetition records Moses words repeating those
of God.
During the course of his reworking, the editor had to change the wording slightly, since
in Deuteronomy 13, Moses spoke in the first person, while in the other chapters he was
often mentioned in the third person. The reviser therefore slightly rewrote the original text,
for example:
Source MT Deut 1:9 kla rmaw
Rewritten text SP Exod 18:24a [h la hm rmayw
Source MT Deut 1:23 rbdh yny[b bfyyw
Rewritten text SP Num 12:16b hm yny[b rbdh bfyyw
This type of rewriting reminds us of the Temple Scroll, which contains changes in the
reverse direction. That text was rephrased in the first person, as if it contains the word of
God, rendering it necessary to rephrase all biblical utterances in the third person referring
to God in the first person (cf. chapter 2*). For example,
Source MT Deut 20:17 hwhy rjby ra wqmb hnb hn
Rewritten text 11QT
a
LII 9 rjba ra wqmb hnb hn
Source MT Deut 20:17 yhla hwhy wx rak
Rewritten text 11QT
a
LXII 15 hkytywx rak
REWRITTEN BIBLE COMPOSITIONS AND BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS 13
from Horeb, viz., vv 11-12 (In the second year . . . the Israelites set out
on their journey from the wilderness of Sinai). In actual fact, while
Deuteronomy speaks of Horeb, Numbers mentions Sinai, but the reviser
realized that the same place was intended.
20

Thus, when following the sequence of the verses in Numbers and
Exodus in which the reviser had inserted the duplicated sections, we
note in col. 5 of the table that with the exception of the aforementioned
Exod 18:25a, he followed the sequence of the chapters in Numbers, with
some exceptions.
21

The reviser knew his biblical text well, and therefore the appointment
of the judges (Deut 1:9-18) had to be added out of sequence in Exodus 18.
Likewise, the last item in the speech in Deuteronomy 13 (Deut 3:23-26),
Moses request to enter Canaan, was repeated in a different place in
Numbers, in conjunction with the story of the Waters of Meribah. In
Deuteronomy, this request was inserted after the people had finished
encircling Edom and had conquered Moab. This is a logical place for the
request, just preceding the entering of Canaan. However, in SP a
different logic is reflected. In the SP of Num 20:13b, the section is placed
after the description of Moses sin at the Waters of Meribah, where he
had shown insufficient trust in the Lord and was therefore punished by
not being allowed to enter Canaan. This placement of the addition shows
that the editor was a very attentive reader and exegete; he considered
this a more appropriate place for Moses special request.
The preserved fragments of 4QNum
b
and 4QpaleoExod
m
include all
the sections repeated in SP in the same places. This evidence is provided
in col. 6 of the table. In all instances, the preserved evidence of the two
Qumran scrolls agrees with SP, while in three cases, 4QNum
b
can be
reconstructed as having contained such an addition. The text of that
scroll is well preserved and enables the reconstruction of the number of
lines in each column.
The nature of the exegesis behind the addition of the verses in the SP
group in Exodus and Numbers is such that it probably ought to be

20
Likewise, on another occasion, when the text of Deut 18:16 read: This is just what you
asked of the Lord your God at Horeb . . . , the next verses, too, had to be added at an
appropriate place in the story since the preserved story actually did not contain this
utterance. Indeed, Deut 18:18-22 was repeated appropriately in the heart of the story of the
Sinai revelation itself, as Exod 20:18b, though not in Deuteronomy. This section was
likewise placed at this point in 4QRP
a
(4Q158), frg. 6, lines 69 and 4QTest lines 58.
21
The following additional verses are found in the text of Exodus and Numbers in the
SP based on segments derived from Deuteronomy 13 (italics indicate special cases): Num
10:10b; Exod 18:24b, 25b; Num 12:16b (before 13:1); Num 13:33b (before 14:1); Num 14:40b;
Num 14:45b; Num 20:13b; Num 21:11b; Num 21:12b; Num 21:20b; Num 21:22b; Num
21:23b; Num 27:23b; Num 20:13b.
14 CHAPTER SIX
conceived of as the work of a single person and not of a school or textual
family. The few instances mentioned above, in which the editor deviated
from the verse sequence, show the personal involvement of an
individual, which is reflected in more than one textual source. It seems
that a single text, reflecting the work of an individual, must be assumed
at the base of the SP texts.
4. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Rewritten Bible Compositions
The so-called rewritten Bible compositions do not form a well-defined
group; they have in common a reworking of an existing Scripture text. In
the case of the Temple Scroll, this is a text of an independent nature, and
in the case of Jubilees, it is a text close to the SP group.
22
Neither the
purpose of the reworking nor the Sitz im Leben of these texts or their
authoritative status is always clear. Some compositions deviate only
minimally from the biblical text, while others differ substantially.
In the latter half of the Temple Scroll,
23
long stretches of biblical text
are presented with only minor changes from the majority text. In fact, it

22
For the former, see my study The Temple Scroll and Old Testament Textual
Criticism, ErIsr 16 (Harry M. Orlinsky Volume) (ed. B. A. Levine and A. Malamat; Heb.
with Eng. summ.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew Union College-Jewish
Institute of Religion, 1982) 10011; for the latter, see the argumentation of J. C. VanderKam,
Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,
1977) 1368.
23
The Temple Scroll contains large sections that provide a running text of Deuteronomy
with few differences from MT, e.g., 11QT
a
, cols. LX 10LXIV 6, as well as other stretches of
text in which the main difference from the canonical text of the Torah is the deviating
internal sequence of 11QT
a
, e.g., col. LIII 1114a (Deut 23:22-24), LIII 14b21 (Num 30:3-6),
LIV 15a (Num 30:3-14 [different internal sequence]), LIV 5b21 (Deut 13:1-7), LV 114 (Deut
13:13-19), LV 1521 (Deut 17:2-5), LVI 121 (Deut 17:9-18). The various biblical texts are
linked to one another by principles of associative connection, as if they reflected an
exegetical chain of legal prescriptions. See G. Brin, Concerning Some of the Uses of the
Bible in the Temple Scroll, RevQ 12 (1987) 51928. If, as M. O. Wise, A Critical Study of the
Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (SAOC 49; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, 1990) believes, the mentioned sections in 11QT
a
belonged to a separate source
preceding the Temple Scroll, that source would be the closest among the reworked biblical
compositions to the biblical text. However, the Temple Scroll also contains sections that
consist of a combination of two or more different Torah laws pertaining to a specific issue.
For example, col. LII 15a combines elements from both Deut 16:2217:1 and Lev 26:22 with
reference to the prohibition of idols, with Deuteronomy serving as the leading text.
Furthermore, the Temple Scroll rewrites the content of the biblical text from time to time,
freely condensing the often verbose text of Deuteronomy, and altering some of its ideas,
such as col. LIII 28 rephrasing Deut 12:20-28 and 15-19 and col. XXV 1012 rephrasing Lev
23:27-29; see further chapter 2*.
REWRITTEN BIBLE COMPOSITIONS AND BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS 15
is often almost impossible to decide whether small fragments found at
Qumran contained a biblical text or a rewritten biblical composition.
24

The main focus of this study is an analysis of the SP group as a
rewritten Bible text. The analysis shows that the distinction between the
various texts is difficult, since the SP group displays all the features of a
rewritten Bible text, yet has been accepted among the authoritative
Scripture texts. What the rewritten Bible compositions and the SP group
have in common is the interaction of stretches of Scripture text with
exegetical expansions, although these expansions differ in nature and
tendency. An early rewritten Bible text, Chronicles, was included in the
Hebrew and Greek canon. Not all communities accepted some of these
literary reformulations. Thus, some of them made their way to the
Jewish LXX translators (the presumed source of the LXX of 1 Kings,
Esther, and Daniel),
25
but not to the collection of MT. Other texts
circulating in ancient Israel made their way to the Qumran community.
4QReworked Pentateuch, reclassified as a biblical text,
26
may have been
considered to be authoritative Scripture by the Qumran community or
another group.


24
As a result, it is unclear whether 2QExod
b
is a biblical manuscript or a fragment of a
reworked Bible text (see M. Baillet in DJD III). For additional examples of such uncertainty,
see chapter 10*.
25
See chapter 20*.
26
See chapter 20*.




CHAPTER SEVEN

THE REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA
AS FOUND AT QUMRAN AND MASADA

Five different fragmentary manuscripts from Qumran and one from
Masada are based on the book of Joshua or rewrite that book. The
present study cautiously suggests that four, five, or all six of them
represent a single composition that is named here an apocryphon of
Joshua. Each of the six manuscripts covers different themes and
episodes from the book of Joshua. The coverage, nature, and tendencies
of these six manuscripts are described in this study. Much attention is
directed at 4Q522 (4QapocrJosh
c
), which, despite its limited scope,
provides the longest continuous stretch of preserved text of the
apocryphon of Joshua. In the past, the name apocryphon of Joshua
was given to 4Q378 and 4Q379 by Newsom (see below), and we suggest
that this name be assigned to another two, three, or four texts, totaling
four, five, or six texts altogether. The term apocryphon is probably not
the most appropriate for this composition and, in fact, a name such as
paraphrase of Joshua would be more appropriate. However, as the
term apocryphon is in use in the literature, we decline to change it.
Initially, a link is established between 4Q378, 4Q379, and 4Q522,
named or renamed 4QapocrJosh
a,b,c
. At a second stage, this group of
three manuscripts is expanded to include a fourth, 5Q9 (5QapocrJosh?,
published as Ouvrage avec toponymes). The link with that text is
made through the contents of the list of geographical names in 4Q522
(4QapocrJosh
c
) 9 i (and other fragments), due to the similar form of both
lists and their mentioning of Joshua. This group of four documents is
then expanded to six, but with a lesser degree of certainty due to the
fragmentary nature of the two additional documents, MasParaJosh (=
Mas apocrJosh?) and 4QpaleoParaJosh (= 4Qpaleo apocrJosh
d
?).
The Assumption of Moses, also known as the Testament of Moses to
Joshua, containing a long farewell speech by Moses to Joshua, is a related
work, though not connected with this apocryphon.
2 CHAPTER SEVEN
I. 4Q378379 (4QapocrJosh
a,b
)

Two copies of a composition rewriting the book of Joshua have been
preserved, albeit very fragmentarily, and were published by Newsom.
1

Many of the fragments of 4Q378379 reflect speeches, blessings, and
prayers by Joshua not contained in the biblical book. These sections in
4Q378379 are built on the model of Joshuas speeches in chapters 1, 18
21, and 2324, and also on those of Moses in Deuteronomy chapters 13
and 2831. 4Q522 contains a similar speech by Joshua probably delivered
not far from Jerusalem.
4Q378 (4QapocrJosh
a
; previously named 4QpssJosh
a
), dating to the
Herodian period, covers the earlier part of Joshuas life. It probably
started off with the Israelites mourning for Moses (frg. 14), and
contained an account of the transferal of leadership from Moses to
Joshua (frg. 3). Several other fragments contain speeches of Joshua to the
people (cf. Joshuas speeches scattered throughout the biblical book,
especially in chapters 1821). The incident of Achan (Joshua 7) is
probably described in frg. 6 i, the ruse of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) in frg.
22, Joshuas restraining of the sun (chapter 10) in frg. 26 (cf. especially
line 5), and a summary of the conquests in accordance with Gods plan
(Josh 21:42-43) in frg. 11. The covenant with the patriarchs is mentioned
three times (11 3; 14 4; 22 i 4). It is noteworthy that the Assumption of
Moses, also known as the Testament of Moses to Joshua, also refers
frequently to this covenant (e.g., 3:9; 4:5).
4Q379 (4QapocrJosh
b
), dating to the Hasmonean period, follows the
biblical text of the book of Joshua more closely. It contains a description
of the crossing of the Jordan (frg. 12 and probably additional fragments)
and of the curse pronounced on the rebuilder of Jericho (Josh 6:26),
together with a prophetic vision of the identity of that rebuilder (frg. 22
ii). The blessings mentioned in frgs. 1516 reflect the ceremony on or
opposite Mt. Gerizim (Josh 8:30-35), even though Newsom connects it
with the crossing of the Jordan (chapter 3) and the assembly at Gilgal
(chapters 45). A summary of Joshuas victories over the inhabitants of
Canaan is reflected in frg. 3 (parallel to Joshua 13). Frg. 17 probably
reflects Joshuas final speech (cf. line 4 with Josh 24:4-5).

II.

4Q522 (4QapocrJosh
c
)
The thirteen fragments of 4Q522, the largest of which was numbered frg.

1
C. Newsom, DJD XXII, 23788.
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 3
9 iii by Puech,
2
were dated to the mid-first century BCE by Puech, 689.
All the fragments reflect the same handwriting, including three
fragments containing parts of Psalm 122.
3
In light of the following
discussion, it would probably be best to rename all the fragments of
4Q522 as 4QapocrJosh
c
, based on the model of 4QapocrJosh
a,b
with
which 4Q522 has several elements and motifs in common. This
composition was previously named La pierre de Sion (Puech, RB 99),
Prophtie de Josu (4QApocrJosu?) (Puech, DJD XXV), and Joshua
Cycles (Qimron).
The left column of the largest fragment, frg. 9 ii, was published
preliminarily by Puech in 1992 and described by him as dealing with
David and his son as well as the temple and tabernacle. This topic was,
according to Puech, the reason for the inclusion of the Jerusalem
Psalm, Psalm 122, in that composition. The same scholar published the
three fragments containing parts of that Psalm in 1978.
4
The 1992 study
by Puech also contains a long exposition on the Rock of Zion and the
place of the altar. An ancient text focusing on these issues would not be
out of place in the Qumran corpus, in which we find, for example,
4QFlor containing a pesher dealing with the building of the temple. That
text was renamed 4QMidrEschat
a
by Steudel, and joined with other
fragments that according to Steudel belonged to the same composition.
5

Reacting to this publication, Qimron republished the text of frg. 9 ii
with several new readings and reconstructions, all based on the
photograph that also formed the basis for Puechs work (PAM 43.606).
6

Qimron proposed a completely different interpretation of this column,
describing it as a fragment of a treatise dealing with what he named
Joshua Cycles. In this interpretation, Qimron was actually preceded by
Eisenman and Wise (not mentioned by Qimron), who were probably the
first to recognize the true meaning of this document.
7
A comparison of
the publications by Puech and Qimron is a veritable exercise in the

2
. Puech, La pierre de Sion et lautel des holocaustes daprs un manuscrit hbreu de
la grotte 4 (4Q522), RB 99 (1992) 67696, finalized in DJD XXV. In the original study, this
fragment was named frg. 9, but Puechs revised numbering system (DJD XXV) is
followed here. Otherwise, reference is made to Puechs article.
3
The name given to 4Q522 in TovPfann, Companion Volume, Work with Place Names,
is imprecise since it only pertains to col. i of frg. 9.
4
. Puech, Fragments du Psaume 122 dans un manuscrit hbreu de la grotte IV, RevQ
9 (1978) 54754.
5
Steudel, Der Midrasch.
6
E. Qimron, Concerning Joshua Cycles from Qumran, Tarbiz 63 (1995) 5038 (Heb.
with Eng. summ.).
7
R. H. Eisenman and M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury, Dorset:
Element, 1992) 8993.
4 CHAPTER SEVEN
method of comparing the exegesis of small Qumran fragments in which
scholars necessarily read much into the lacunae. While adopting
Qimrons view, we advance the discussion of this and other fragments of
4Q522, suggesting that they are part of 4QapocrJosh, that is,
4QapocrJosh
c
in our nomenclature. We also attempt to analyze the
theology and background of this composition.
The descriptions of frg. 9 ii by Puech and Qimron are very different,
and therefore one should first try to locate the identifiable elements in
this column. Most of these elements pertain exclusively to the figures of
David and Solomon, the temple, and the Jebusites (hence Puechs
explanation). In Puechs explanation, they feature as the central elements
of this document, while for Qimron they are a mere digression in a
document containing the memoirs of Joshua. Indeed, only a few of the
identifiable elements pertain exclusively to the period of Joshua. In the
course of our analysis, the other fragments of 4Q522 are also taken into
consideration.
According to Puech, Pierre de Sion, 4Q522 contains a midrashic
prophecy by God, with apocalyptic and messianic elements, addressed
to the prophet Nathan, the seer Samuel, or the seer Gad, in the third and
first person (Puech, Pierre de Sion, 690). In the main, this prophecy is
based on 12 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, although to some extent it also
continues 4Q378379. Although Puech was aware of some links between
4Q522 and the period of Joshua, he nevertheless related it more to the
period of David and Solomon, and made reconstructions accordingly
(see the reconstructed lacunae in lines 4, 6, 8, 12, 13).
A note on the reconstructions is in order. Puechs reconstructions
presuppose a much longer line length than those of Qimron. Qimron
based the shortness of his reconstructions on the preserved text of lines
910, in which probably only a single word needs to be reconstructed
following the extant text (Qimron, Joshua Cycles, 505). We concur with
this view for lines 910 but not with regard to the other lines. The printed
reconstruction is probably somewhat misleading. The photograph shows
that the last preserved word of line 9, yn[nkhw, as well as those of the
adjacent lines is far to the left of the remnants of the other lines. Even if
only a single word were to be added at the ends of these two lines, we
need to extend the reconstruction of the other lines to more or less the
same point. Therefore, Qimrons reconstruction of several lines is too
short (lines 1114, and probably also lines 2, 3). For yet a different edition,
based on PAM 41.948 and PAM 43.606, and the respective editions of
Puech and Qimron, see Dimant, Apocryphon, 183.

REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 5
4Q522 (4QapocrJosh
c
) 9 ii
8


?

? 1
?q d[ d[ w_ m l ha ta ykhl _ w_ ?yxl awbl lk ?wn a w l 2
?dwklyw hdwhy b rp b yyl dlwn b hnh yk yt[h 3
?whwjyny awl _p yrwmah
lk
ta m rwyw wyx [ls ta 4
?yky twjnw skw bhz lary y_ hwla hwhyl tybh
ta
twnbl 5
?qwdxw wnnby fq h wnbw wtwnbl _ wnbl ?m a y_ by ywrbw yzra 6
?whkrbyw_ hx ?ry w_ twaw ?wnawby ds j ? m _ w_ yar hky 7
?lwkw jfbl wky ?hwhy dydy? yk ymh m w[ ?mh m 8
?rhb yn [nkhw yrwmah ht[w d[ l wky wm[ ymy_ ?h 9
?yrwah f p?m ta ytrd awl ra y n wyfjh ra bwy 10
? ?lar ?yl lw[ db[ wyttn h ?nhw ynwlhw hktam 11
?wayw hlb yn[nkh m qwjr d[?wm lha ta hnyk?n ht[w 12
? hll la tybm d[?wm lha ta [?wyw r z[la 13
? lary twkr[ m abx r ? [ wy 14
? l? l ? 15

4. awl p The remains of the letters on the leather do not seem to fit
this reconstruction.
7. ?wnawby ds j The remains of the letters on the leather do not seem to
fit this reconstruction.
1. Exclusive connection with David and Solomon
3. hdwhy b rp b yyl dlwn b hnh yk. This phrase exclusively reflects the
period of David and Solomon, although it does not necessarily imply
that the composition pertains to that period. If the phrase is translated as
behold, a son will be born . . ., it could reflect a prophetic vision of
what is to happen generations later. Thus J. T. Milik in DJD III, 179 and
Qimron, Joshua Cycles, 506. On the other hand, if the phrase is
translated as for behold, a son was born to Jesse son of Peretz son of
Ju]dah (Puech, Pierre de Sion, 678: un fils est n Jess), the phrase
must be connected exclusively with the period of David and Solomon.
A parallel for the understanding of hnh as referring to a future event
(thus Milik and Qimron) is provided by Joshuas prophecy in 4Q175, line
23: wq?y jp twyhl dmw[ l[ylb dja rwra
ya
(hnh =) hna (behold a cursed man,
one of Belial, has arisen to be a fow[lers t]rap).

8
With a few exceptions, the text reproduced here follows the reconstruction of Qimron.
For further reconstructions, see H. Eshel, A Note on a Recently Published Text: The
Joshua Apocryphon, in The Centrality of JerusalemHistorical Perspectives (ed. M.
Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 8993 and Dimant, Apocryphon,
183.
6 CHAPTER SEVEN
4. wyx [ls ta?. . . . the rock of Zion. This phrase, otherwise unknown
from the Bible, probably refers to the mountain area that David bought
from Aravna (Samuel)/Ornan (Chronicles) the Jebusite, on which he
planned to establish the temple (2 Sam 24:18-24; 1 Chr 21:18-22). The
reconstruction at the end of the preceding line probably contained a verb
such as dwklyw (Qimron, Joshua Cycles, 505), for which cf. Num 21:32,
32:39 and 2 Sam 5:7 or jqyw (Puech, Pierre de Sion).
4. yrwmah
lk
ta m rwyw. and he [scil. David] expelled from there all the
Amorites. For the phrase, cf. Num 21:32, but the situation is that of the
expulsion of the Jebusites from Jerusalem by David, described in 2 Sam
5:6-9.
5. skw bhz lary y hwla hwhyl tybh
ta
twnbl?. to build the temple for the
Lord, God of Israel, (made of) gold and silver. This phrase, referring to
the building of the temple, does not occur exactly in this way in the
Bible, but for similar formulations, cf. 1 Chr 22:6; 1 Kgs 5:17, 19; 8:17, 20,
all referring to David. The similar phrase in 2 Chr 3:1 refers to Solomon.
Since David did not actually build the temple, a task later accomplished
by Solomon, the key to the understanding of this phrase must be sought
in the lacuna at the end of the previous line, 4. The contents of that
lacuna, together with the reading of the last two letters on the line, differ
in Puechs and Qimrons reconstructions, but both of them assume that
David is the subject of the verb at the beginning of line 5.
6. wtwnbl wnbl ?m a y_ by ywrbw yzra?. He will bring [from] Lebanon
cedars and cypresses to build it. For Davids preparations for the
building of the temple, see especially 1 Kgs 5:20, 22; 1 Chr 22:4.
6. fq h wnbw. and his little son. In this context, after the mentioning
of David, this phrase undoubtedly referred to Solomon, who was to
build the temple (cf. 1 Chr 22:5; 2 Chr 6:9).
8. w jfbl wky ?hwhy dydy?. the beloved of the Lo[rd] will dwell safely
and[. The phrase refers to Solomon, who is described as the beloved of
God (hydydy) in 2 Sam 12:24-25. Puech refers to Sir 47:12, where a similar
phrase is applied to Solomon: bybsm wl jynh lae w hwl ymyb lm hml.
The aforementioned elements were accepted by both scholars as
exclusively connected with the period of David and Solomon. Zion is
mentioned in line 2 and the rock of Zion in line 4. David expels the
Amorites from Zion (line 4) and lines 56 describe in detail the building
of the temple by Davids son, Solomon.
As a result, there are rather compelling reasons for connecting the
column as a whole with the period of David and Solomon, as suggested
by Puech, but there are a few details in the text that are questionable in
this context and that lead to a different explanation.
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 7
2. Connection with any period
Some elements in the text fit any period in the history of Israel.
2. _ w_ ?yxl.
2. d[ w_ m l ha ta ykhl. to set up there the Tent of Meeting. This
phrase, which recurs in line 12 (see below), may refer to several periods
in the history of Israel, from the time of Moses until the period of the
Israelite kings. At the same time, the combination of ykh in the hiphil or
in another conjugation and the Tent of Meeting occurs only in Josh
18:1, where it is used with regard to the setting up of the tent of meeting
at Shiloh: d[wm lha ta wnykyw. In the present context, however, there
refers to Jerusalem (Zion), where for various reasons the Tent of Meeting
could not be established, and the reasons are specified later on in the
text.
7. m _ w_ yar hky. he will officiate there first. The subject of the verb,
which is crucial for the understanding of the context, was found in the
lacuna at the end of the previous line, reconstructed by Puech as either
Solomon or David, and by Qimron as Zadok, Davids priest who
brought the ark from Qiryat Yearim to Jerusalem (2 Sam 15:24-37). The
verb refers to the religious officiating of priests, which could include
Zadok, and by extension also David, who sacrified offerings at the altar
of Aravna in 2 Sam 24:25, and Solomon.
14. lary twkr[ m abx r ?. The phrase abx r ? could fit several persons;
the longer phrase, as reconstructed by Qimron, fits Joshua (cf. 5:14, 15).
3. Absence of connection to David and Solomon
While the above-mentioned details in 4Q522 9 ii refer to the period of
David and Solomon, the detail listed below does not. By the same token,
it is hard to find a link between the period of David and Solomon and
the list of geographical names in col. i of that document. Likewise, the
details mentioned in section (4), positively linking 4Q522 with the book
of Joshua, negatively affect their connection with the period of David
and Solomon.
9. yn [nkhw yrwmah ht[w. but now the Amorite is there and the
Canaani[te. It is unclear why 4Q522 would stress that during the period
of David and Solomon the Amorites and the Canaanites were now there,
for they had been there since time immemorial. Because of this difficulty,
it seems that this phrase does not refer to the period of David and
Solomon. According to Puech, Pierre de Sion, 687, this phrase
introduces a new topic relating to another aspect of the presence of
Israel in the midst of the indigenous peoples of the land, most probably
including Jerusalem. But the connection between the different issues in
8 CHAPTER SEVEN
4Q522 is very clear. In line 4, the speaker says that in the future David
will expel the Amorites, but he reminds the listeners that at this juncture
the Amorites and Canaanites are present in the land.
4. Exclusive connection with Joshua and the book of Joshua
Several details in the text refer exclusively to the period and book of
Joshua.
12. h m qwjr d[?wm lha ta hnyk?n ht[w. and now let us set up the
Ten[t of Mee]ting far away from . . . [. The minute remains of the last
word were read by Puech as a qoph yielding a restoration yr[y tyrq , and
by Qimron as a he, yielding a restoration yn[nkh. Even though the
connection of the preceding lines with the period of David and Solomon
is obvious, it is rather difficult to explain this phrase within the
framework of that period in view of the words, far away from . . ..
Since the Tent of Meeting was located in what was to become the center
of the empire, why would that locality be described as being far away
from something or someone? On the other hand, the cultic actions of
Joshua occurred far away from places that afterwards were considered
central. Line 12 could therefore be understood in light of line 9 yn [nkhw
yrwmah ht[w, but now the Amorite is there and the Canaani[te, as
referring to the distance (far away) from these peoples. It therefore
seems that because of the presence of the Amorites and Canaanites in
Jerusalem, Joshua (partial subject of the first verb in line 12, hnyk?n)
realized that he had to move the center of the cult temporarily far away
from Jerusalem.
The phrase used in line 12 as well as in line 2, that occurs in the Bible
only in Josh 18:1 with regard to the installing of the Tent of Meeting at
Shiloh, d[wm lha ta wnykyw, they installed there the Tent of Meeting,
further strengthens the connection with the book of Joshua. 4Q522 used
exactly the same phrase for the setting up of the Tent of Meeting in an
unnamed place, probably Shiloh, to be read in the lacuna at the end of
line 12. Qimrons reconstruction does not include any name at this place
in the lacuna, but such a name is necessary. Firstly, since the next line
mentions the moving of the Tent of Meeting from Beth[el] to another
location (mentioned in the lacuna at the end of line 13), that location
would probably have been mentioned in Joshuas speech. Secondly, the
reconstructed line 12 would be too short if no name appeared in the
lacuna (cp. the length of the reconstructed lines 9 and 10, the longest
preserved lines, for which a plausible reconstruction was suggested,
with line 12). A parallel to the text of line 12 appears in 4Q379

26 23, on
which see below.
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 9
13. r z[la. Eleazar. This name, preserved without any context,
probably represents the most disconcerting element in Puechs
explanation; he regards this Eleazar as the son of Abinadab (read in the
lacuna in line 13) of Qiryat Yearim (read in the lacuna in line 12). Indeed,
an Eleazar son of Abinadab was made custodian of the ark in 2 Sam 7:1.
However, it is more logical to interpret this name as the well-known
figure of Eleazar in light of Qimrons plausible reading of [?wyw r z[la in
this line, and even more so because of the occurrence of the name of
Joshua in the next line. It should further be remembered that the related
document 4Q379 17 5 also mentions Eleazar.
14. The first word of the line is [ wy, which, however, was read by
Puech as ?lary t[ wy. A corroborating argument for reading here the
name of Joshua is the occurrence of the same name as [wy hyhw in 5Q9, a
document whose list of geographical names resembles the list of the
names in 4Q522 9 i. Note that 4Q378 22 i 23 also refer to Joshua as [wy.
The latter details in particular are not compatible with the view that
the document as a whole is connected with the period of David and
Solomon. The references to David and Solomon should therefore be
viewed as a digression within a text connected with Joshua.
There are two further groups of supporting evidence that strengthen
the position that 4Q522 pertains to Joshua.
a. 4Q522 (4QapocrJosh
c
) 9 i and small fragments
a. The list of geographical names preceding frg. 9 ii is connected with the
person and book of Joshua (thus without details, Qimron, Joshua
Cycles, 507). Three of the small fragments in photograph PAM 43.606
and frg. 9 i contain a list or lists of geographical names all of which
immediately precede col ii. Because of its position in the scroll, this list
must have had some relevance to the speech in col. ii. This relevance
seems to be remote if the fragment is ascribed to the period of David and
Solomon, but is very pertinent to the book of Joshua, which contains
many long lists of geographical names.
The list in frg. 9 i and the smaller fragments can be subdivided into
two groups of data: (1) a list of localities, partly within tribal territories,
probably presented as conquered by Joshua; and (2) areas that had not
been conquered by Joshua.
(1) Lists of localities, partly within tribal territories
The nearly complete names in this column are based on my own
readings, improving on those of Eisenman-Wise and Garca Martnez:
9


9
This list was published preliminarily, and with many mistakes, by Eisenman-Wise (see
n. 7) and F. Garca Martnez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden/New York: E. J. Brill,
10 CHAPTER SEVEN
1. Ain Qeber[
2. Baki?, Beth Zippor
3. the whole valley of Mis wa
4. Heykhalim, Yaapur
5. Makku, Ain Kober
6. Haduta, Ai of . . .
7. [Ma]don which is . . .
8. Ashqelon
9. Galil and two . . . [ ]? of the Sharon
10. [for/in Ju]dah: Beer Sheba [and] Bealot
11. Qeilah, Adullam
12. Gezer, Temni, Gimzon
13. ?]hiqqar, Qitr[on] and Efranim, the fields of . . .
14. Upper and Lower Beth-H oron
15. Upper and Lower Gulot
The wording of frg. 2 3 also reminds us of the tribal lists in Joshua, as
it contains a standard formula in the description of borders (cf. e.g. Josh
15:3): axy ra r?.
Frg. 4 2 contains a phrase wm tyxjmw l ?, reminding us of Josh 21:25
hnm hfm tyxjmmw, and probably referring to half of the tribe of Manasseh.
The list in frg. 9 i mentions names of places, all of them preceded by
ta or taw. This list was probably preceded by a verb such as dwklyw, and
he [scil. Joshua] conquered, listing the various localities conquered by
Joshua. Only in this way is the beginning of the preserved text of line 10
understandable: twl[b t?aw [b rab ta hdwh ?yb/l, [in/for Ju]dah: Beer
Sheba [and] Bealot. In other words, in the area that subsequently
became the territory of Judah, Joshua conquered Beer Sheba and Bealot.
This wording also makes it likely that a sequence such as ?wrfqw rqj?
ynrpaw in line 13 implies that these localities were in close proximity,
unless the scribe was inconsistent and forgot to precede each locality by
ta.
The names in this list were probably grouped in a certain way, each
unit starting with ta, for otherwise the interchange of ta and taw is not
understandable. This explains for example the relation between the items
in lines 46.
Although the details in the list are unclear and the text is fragmentary,
a certain logic is visible. The list starts with the north: [Ma]don (cf. Josh
11:1; 12:19) as well as additional names of locations not mentioned in the

1994) 2279. My own readings were improved in a few cases by L. Mazors identifications
(see next note).
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 11
Bible. It continues with the territory of Judah; the cities known from the
Bible are: Beer Sheba (Josh 15:28), Bealot (Josh 15:25; cf. also Josh 15:9,
28 Baalah), Qeilah (Josh 15:44), Adullam (Josh 15:35), Temni (cf. Josh
15:10, 56 Timnah), Upper and Lower Gulot (Josh 15:19; Judg 1:15).
Finally, the list contains cities from the tribe of Joseph: Gezer (Josh 16:3,
10) and Upper and Lower Beth-Horon (Josh 16:3, 5).
The list includes several names not mentioned in the Bible, but known
to be connected with the three areas just mentioned. All these data have
been analyzed in detail in a valuable study by L. Mazor.
10

(2) Areas not conquered by Joshua
A few fragments seem to list areas that had not been conquered by
Joshua. This understanding is based on frg. 8, which lists the four tribes
of Sim[on], Dan, Issachar, and Asher and also contains a segment of a
narrative in line 2: ta awh g hkh awl dw, (nor did Dan conquer . . .) for
which cf. Judg 1:34-35. In the lacuna, this fragment may have mentioned
Har-Heres, which Dan did not conquer according to Judges 1. Line 3 of
the same fragment,

?ta raw tyb ta rkyw?, should probably be under-
stood as [nor] did Issachar [conquer] Beth Shean, [nor] did Asher
[conquer] . . .. There is no exact biblical parallel for this statement, but
one is reminded of Judg 1:27, according to which Manasseh did not
conquer Beth Shean. It is also possible that this fragment reflects Josh
17:11, according to which Manasseh possessed a few areas within the
allotments of Issachar and Asher, namely Beth Shean and other localities:
hytwnbw a tyb rabw rkyb.
Frg. 3 2 mentions the Canaanite, signifying that it probably deals with
cities that were not conquered by Joshua. The fragment also mentions
]from the valley of Akhor (in Josh 15:7 that valley is mentioned as
belonging to the tribe of Judah).
Frg. 11 probably deals with incomplete conquests (see line 1) and frg.
5 contains the phrase these people, probably referring to those who
were not destroyed by Joshua (for the phrase and idea, cf. Josh 23:3, 4, 12,
13).
b. The second type of support for the view that 4Q522 is related to
Joshua derives from a few allusions to phrases in the book of Joshua (for
the wording of lines 1011 y n wyfjh, and ynwlhw, cf. the biblical text of 9:22
wnta tymr hml). The text of line 11 has to be reconstructed as db[ wyttn
lar ?yl lw[ on the basis of Josh 9:23 (thus Qimron).
b. Interpretation of 4Q522 as 4QapocrJosh
c

4Q522 9 i (and small fragments) lists names of places conquered by the

10
L. Mazor, The Description of the Land According to 4Q522, forthcoming.
12 CHAPTER SEVEN
Israelite tribes in the north of the country and in the territories of Judah
and Joseph, and it further contains lists of areas that had not been
conquered.
It so happens that in the parallel to these lists in the biblical book of
Joshua, at the end of the tribal list of Judah, the one city that the
Judahites were unable to conquer, namely the city of Jebus, is mentioned
specifically (15:63): But the people of Judah could not drive out the
Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so the Jebusites live with the
people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day. A similar note is appended to
the description of the tribe of Benjamin in Judg 1:21. It stands to reason
that 4Q522 followed a similar procedure, moving from the lists of Judah
and Joseph (note that the majority of the surviving names in col. i pertain
to the tribal list of Judah) to the fate of Jerusalem and the subsequent
building of the temple in that city.
The second column of this fragment starts off with Zion (line 2),
probably continuing the description begun at the end of the previous
column and in the first line of the present column. The logical link
between the two columns could be the mentioning of the cities that were
conquered and of Jerusalem, which was not conquered. The fact that this
city had not been conquered is the link with the discussion regarding
why the ark was not brought there. The situation depicted gives the
impression that Joshua delivered his speech not far from Jerusalem, close
to Bethel (cf. lines 1213), after deciding not to bring the ark to Jerusalem.
The text of col. ii continues with Joshuas speech explaining why he
was unable to conquer Jerusalem (line 2): first a negation (awl) and
afterwards the fragmentary text continues with d[ w m l ha ta ykhl, to
install there the Tent of Meeting. At the time of Joshua, that city was
still inhabited by the Jebusites, but he foresaw that in the future the city
would be conquered by David, that the Tent of Meeting would be
transferred there, and that eventually the temple would be established
there. The reason for the need of an expulsion of the Amorites is
probably the fear that they might disturb the building of the temple (just
as the building of the Second Temple was disturbed by others).
The prophetic vision of what would happen in the future is clad in the
form of a speech by an unnamed person, in the first person, and
sometimes changing to the first person plural (line 12). This speaker can
only have been Joshua himself.
Joshua also turns to someone in the second person singular (lines 10
11: That I did not demand from you the decision of the Urim and
Tummim (hktam/?yrwah f p?m ta ytrd awl ra). The wording of these
lines should be seen in light of Josh 9:14 wla al hwhy yp taw with reference
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 13
to the ruse of the Gibeonites.
Joshua gives three reasons for not bringing the tabernacle to
Jerusalem, and by implication, for not building the temple there:
a. In the future, David will conquer Jerusalem and expel the Amorites
from there. This statement implies that Joshua knew that in the future
Jerusalem would become the central site of worship. He could only have
known this if he was gifted with prophetic inspiration, since this is not
stated explicitly in the Torah. The tradition that Joshua was a prophet is
not universal, and among other things was implied in Joshuas curse on
the rebuilder of Jericho, which was to be implemented many generations
later, in the time of Ahab, according to the story of 1 Kgs 16:34 (see
chapter 26*). Joshuas exhortatory-prophetic character is also at the base
of his final address in chapters 2324 of the biblical book. In no case,
however, is Joshuas mantic character as clear as in 4Q522 and in 4Q379
22 ii, which may therefore have belonged to the same composition. In the
latter fragment, Joshua not only cursed the rebuilder of Jericho, but also
foresaw that someone would actually rebuild the city.
Traditions that Joshua was gifted with prophetic power are also
known from various midrashim.
11

b. Although realizing that Jerusalem was chosen to be the future
center for worship, Joshua was compelled not to bring the tabernacle to
Jerusalem, since the place was still occupied by the local inhabitants.
c. The local inhabitants deceived Joshua, and by implication were not
worthy of the honor of having the Tent of Meeting in their midst. This
argument is not spelled out, but implied. More specifically, Joshua says
that the Canaanites caused him to sin (line 10 y n wyfjh,
12
they have caused
me to sin) and that they misled him (line 11 ynwlhw, they deceived me);
the reference must be to the Gibeonites ruse that misled and deceived
Joshua into allowing them to remain in the midst of the Israelites. For the
formulation of lines 1011, cf. the biblical text of 9:22 wnta tymr hml.
Joshua blames himself for not having turned to the device of the Urim
and Tummim administered by the High Priest, who must be the person
referred to in lines 1011 (hktam ?yrwah f p?m ta ytrd awl).
The first person plural in line 12 may refer to either Joshua and the
people or Joshua and Eleazar.
Acting on the basis of his prophetic vision of the future, Joshua
decided not to install the Tent of Meeting in Jerusalem. This move is
actually not surprising, since there was no reason to install the Tent of

11
See L. Ginsberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1967)
7.266 and Sir 46:1.
12
This form equals ynwayfjh with a glide added (cf. Qimron, Joshua Cycles, 506).
14 CHAPTER SEVEN
Meeting in Jerusalem in accordance with the requirements of the book of
Deuteronomy, as that city had not yet been conquered and the name of
God could therefore not be installed there. Only in retrospect did this
failure to come to Jerusalem pose a problem, prompting Joshuas
apologetic speech in 4Q522. It is not impossible that this aspect reveals
the identity of the author of this composition as someone belonging to
the priestly Jerusalem circles; they may have wished to explain why the
Tent of Meeting was not brought to Jerusalem at an earlier stage.
Joshua decided to install the Tent of Meeting in a place unnamed in
4Q522. The exact location of the Tent of Meeting at the time of Joshuas
speech is not clear from the remains of the manuscript, but it was
probably in Bethel (cf. lines 1213). According to the different biblical
traditions, the Tent of Meeting or the tabernacle (different terms are
used) moved in different ways in Canaan. It transversed the Jordan with
the Israelites according to Joshua chapter 3, and it was with the Israelites
in Gilgal and Jericho (chapters 67). Afterwards the Israelites turned to
Ai and Bethel, facing Jerusalem. According to the story, at that point
Joshua faced the decision of whether to bring the ark to Jerusalem (not in
accordance with the Torah, but in accord with what we know of the
subsequent history of the Israelites) or to another place. Because of the
aforementioned reasons, according to 4Q522, Joshua then decided to take
the ark to another location, probably Shiloh.
This reasoning is based on the fact that line 13 mentions the moving of
the Tent of Meeting from Beth[el] to an unnamed place. It seems to us
that the name of Shiloh should be inserted in the lacuna at the end of line
12. Meanwhile, the fact that the ark was found at Bethel is reflected in the
LXX in Judg 2:1ff. where it is stated that the angel of the Lord came from
Gilgal to Bochim and Bethel (MT Bochim). More explicitly, according to
the tradition of Judg 20:26-28, Phineas son of Eleazar ministered before
the ark at Bethel: . . . Bethel
27
. . . for the ark of Gods covenant was there
in those days,
28
and Phineas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the Priest
ministered before Him in those days . . .. It is not impossible that 4Q522
somehow reflects the various biblical traditions embedded in the books
of Joshua and Judges regarding the ark, explaining how the ark arrived
at Bethel and was later moved from there to Shiloh, where it was indeed
found at a later stage according to Joshua 18.
There is a chronological problem in the combination of these
traditions, since Eleazar was a contemporary of Joshua, while his son
Phineas is mentioned in the tradition in Judges 20. It is not impossible
that this Phineas was mentioned in the lacuna in 4Q522 9 ii 12-13,
[Phineas son of ]Eleazar, but it is more logical to assume that the text
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 15
mentioned Eleazar himself, since he was Joshuas associate in this action
as well as on other occasions. Thus, when Moses was about to die he
commissioned Joshua before Eleazar (Num 27:18-23), and Eleazar
(always mentioned first) and Joshua distributed the regions of Canaan to
the tribes of Israel (Num 32:28; 34:17; Josh 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1).
Likewise, 1QDM I 1112 mentions Eleazar together with Joshua.
One of the key words in col. ii is the root k. Joshua was unable to set
up (ykhl) the Tent of Meeting in Jerusalem (line 2), so he decided to set
it up far away from that city (line 12 hnyk?n ht[w, and now let us set
up). At the same time, Solomon will dwell forever, jfbl wky (line 8).
g. 4Q522 is closely linked with the composition contained in 4Q378379
In many ways, 4Q522 9 iii runs parallel to 4Q378379, which have been
named 4QapocrJosh
a,b
(olim: 4QpssJoshua
a,b
). The following arguments
make it likely that they actually reflect the very same composition:
a. All three texts present a similar paraphrase of the book of Joshua,
sometimes staying close to the biblical text, and sometimes diverging
from it. The type of paraphrase is that of the book of Jubilees, the second
half of the Temple Scroll, 4QparaGen-Exod (4Q422), and several other
fragmentary compositions. In some sections, the rewritten text is close to
that of the Bible; for example, 4Q379 12, narrating the crossing of the
Jordan, is rather close to the biblical text of Josh 3:13-16. More frequently,
however, the Qumran texts move away from the biblical text.
b. All three texts reflect a more hortatory and exhortatory version of
Joshua than that of the biblical book, whose deuteronomistic layer
already has an exhortatory character. Many of the sections of 4Q378379
reflect speeches by Joshua, and likewise 4Q522 9 ii contains such a
speech. These speeches are built on the model of those in Joshua chapters
1, 1821, 2324, and also on those of Moses in Deuteronomy 13, 2831.
c. Joshuas prophetic character is evident in 4Q522 9 ii, in which he
foretells the birth of David, knows that the ark will be brought to
Jerusalem, and that the temple will be built there. This prophetic
character is also visible in 4Q379 22 ii in which Joshua knows in advance
that someone will actually rebuild Jericho. This feature is not prominent
in the biblical book of Joshua, in which he merely utters a curse.
d. In all three texts, although not in all fragments, Joshua speaks in the
first person. See 4Q522 9 ii 2, 10, 12 as well as 4Q379 10 3, 4; 17 5; 18 4, 5, 7;
22 i 4.
e. 4Q378 22 i 23 refers to Joshua as [wy. The name of Joshua appears
with this spelling also in 4Q522 9 ii 14 as well as in 1QDM I 12.
f. 4Q379 17 5 mentions Eleazar, who is also referred to in 4Q522 9 ii 13.
Furthermore, the prayer in 4Q378 22 i 23 that mentions Joshua in the
16 CHAPTER SEVEN
third person could be by Eleazar (thus Newsom); this fragment would be
further support for connecting 4Q378 with 4Q522, since in the latter text
Eleazar is probably spoken to in the second person (see above).
g. 4Q379 1, referring to the Levitical cities, mentions the tribes within
which the Levites were to receive these allotments (cf. Joshua 21). These
tribes are listed in the same way as in 4Q522 9 i and 5Q9, enumerated as
taw . . . ta(w).
h. The motif of guilt is prominent in these texts:
In 4Q522 9 ii 1011 (with regard to the ruse of the Gibeonites), Joshua
blames himself for not having turned to the device of the Urim and
Tummim administered by the High Priest. See further above.
4Q378 6 i 4 wnytafj l[ hlpt a? a prayer on behalf of our sins and
ibid., line 7 hmkyl[ yja ywh hkm?a your [g]uilt. Woe to you my brothers.
This fragment may refer to the sins of the people with regard to Achans
violation of the herem in Joshua 7, but may also refer to the sins of the
people as a whole on several occasions when they rebelled in the
wilderness. The testing mentioned twice in col. ii of the same fragment
may refer to either occasion.
4Q378 22 i 1 tmab t djkh alw and you did not destroy them in their
guilt. Although the editor of this fragment, C. Newsom, believes that
the episode referred to is that of the Golden Calf, it is more likely that the
text refers to the ruse of the Gibeonites which you have not destroyed,
in their sin. The text also refers to Joshua the servant of your servant
Moses, to the transferal of power from Moses to Joshua (line 3), and to
the covenant between God and Abraham (line 4). The covenant referred
to is probably that of Genesis 15, according to which God promised the
land of the Canaanites to Abraham and his offspring, with the
implication that the Canaanites should be killed; Joshua did not do this.
4Q378 24 3, ma t?, without any context.
i. 4Q379 26 23 mention Bethel without any context in line 2 and the
verb wqjr in line 3, just as in 4Q522. Joshua suggests the moving of the
Tent of Meeting far away from . . . (qwjr), while the next line mentions
Beth[el]. The verb used in 4Q379 before the mentioning of Bethel is wbs, if
the reading is correct (la tyb b w_ b s), a verb mentioned also elsewhere in
the Bible with regard to the movements of the ark (1 Sam 5:8; Josh 24:33a
LXX).
The relevance

of the three fragments containing sections of Psalm 122
(see n. 4) to 4Q522 still needs to be established. Even if the handwriting
of these fragments is identical to that of the main fragment on
photograph PAM 43.606, they may have derived from a composition
different from 4Q522, even though the connection with Jerusalem is
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 17
obvious. Since 4Q522 contained both a list of geographical names and an
explanation as to why Joshuas central place of worship was not
Jerusalem, one wonders whether there is room in this composition for a
psalm of praise for Jerusalem when Jerusalem has not yet been
conquered.
At the same time, there is physical room for this short psalm in the
reconstruction of 4Q522 (4QapocrJosh
c
), probably below the text of
4Q522 9 i. That fragment contained sixteen lines of text, and was
probably followed by the continued list of geographical names as
contained in frgs. 67 and the other fragments. If, together with these
fragments, the column contained some twenty-two lines, there remained
enough space to include Psalm 122 at the bottom of col. i (six lines in
Puechs reconstruction). That would be a natural place for this psalm.
The contextual link between the psalm and the context of 4Q522 was
discussed above. The connection between the psalm and the situation of
4Q522 may be supported by the actual wording of the psalm. Since in
verse 2 it reads: Our feet stood inside your gates, O Jerusalem, 4Q522
could have argued that Joshua, when delivering his speech, was actually
very close to Jerusalem, but decided not to conquer the city.
From a physical point of view, the link is possible since the psalm
fragments share an important feature with the main text of 4Q522
(4QapocrJosh
c
) 9 iii, namely that the text was not consistently
suspended from the lines, as in the great majority of Qumran texts, but
rather, in disregard of the ruled lines, appeared below, above, and
through them.
III. 5Q9 (5QapocrJosh?), Previously Named Ouvrage avec toponymes
A list of geographical names similar to that in 4Q522 9 i is known from
the seven fragments of 5Q9, published by Milik in DJD III, 179 as
Ouvrage avec toponymes. The writing is described as late by Milik. As
in 4Q522 9 i, this list mentions the figure of Joshua (frg. 1) and a list of
geographical names (frgs. 17) from the same areas as covered by 4Q522.
As in 4Q522 9 i, the names are preceded with ta and taw.
With one possible exception, the names mentioned in these fragments
do not overlap with those listed in 4Q522 8 i, but they do refer to
localities in the north of the country and from the tribes of Judah and
Joseph. The preserved names include:
Qidah (1 2)
Sidon (2 1)
Beth Tap[uah ? (3 2; tribe of Judah: Josh 15:53)
18 CHAPTER SEVEN
Ain Sidon (4 1)
Kochabah (5 1)
ydr (5 2; cf. Josh 19:10, 12 dyr; tribe of Zebulun)
The waters of Dan (5 3; cf. the waters of Merom in Josh 11:5, 7)
?tnfq (6 1; cf. Josh 19:15 Katanaq LXX [MT tfq])
Seredah (6 2), from the tribe of Efraim (cf. 1 Kgs 11:26).
As in 4Q522, 5Q9 combined the list of names with a narrative, of
which the name Joshua (1 1) and the phrase lwk wabyw ? (6 3) have been
preserved.
One or possibly two details, however, are probably common to both
lists:
4Q522 mentions (13) Qitr[on, possibly from the tribe of Zebulun, cf.
Judg 1:30 (one of the places that was not conquered), for which cf. the
detail mentioned in 5Q9: ?tnfq (6 1). The name Qitron does not occur in
the tribal list of Zebulon in Joshua 19, but tfq is mentioned there; hence
the assumption that this is the same locality. The common identity of the
two names is supported by an explanatory note on a place like Hes ron,
on which Josh 15:25 notes: this is Has or. On the other hand, Amir
believes that the two names represent different localities.
13

4Q522, line 7 [Ma]don may be read as Si]don as in 5Q9 2 1.
In the first stage, a link was established between 4Q378, 4Q379, and
4Q522, named 4QapocrJosh
a,b,c
, all of which are paraphrases of Joshua.
In the second stage, this group of three texts is now expanded to four, to
include 5Q9. The link with that text is made through the contents of the
list of geographical names in 4Q522 8 i, the similar form of both lists, and
their mentioning of Joshua.
IV. MasParaJosh (= Mas apocrJosh?)
MasParaJosh (= Mas1l; also known as Mas 10391211) may well reflect a
fifth copy of the composition described here as apocrJosh. This
composition, published by Talmon,
14
consists of two fragments,
comprising altogether parts of ten lines, together with top and bottom
margins, and probably with lacking intervening text between the two
fragments. The script differs from that of 4Q522, but like 4Q522 8, the

13
D. Amir, Qitron, Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1976) VII.111.
14
S. Talmon, A Joshua Apocryphon from Masada, in Studies on Hebrew and Other
Semitic Languages Presented to Professor Chaim Rabin on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth
Birthday (ed. M. Goshen-Gottstein, S. Morag and S. Kogut; Heb.; Jerusalem: Akademon,
1990) 14757; revised version: Fragments of a Joshua ApocryphonMasada 1039211
(Final Photo 5254), JJS 47 (1996) 12839.
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 19
Masada fragment has words written through the lines (see lines A 45),
which is rather unusual among the fragments from the Judean Desert.
Talmon dates the script of this text to the end of the first century BCE or
the beginning of the first century CE.
While Yadin described this text as reflecting a Samuel apocryphon,
Talmon connects it with the book of Joshua, basing himself on a series of
resemblances between the Masada text and Joshuas final speech in
chapters 2324. Likewise, 4Q379 17 reflects Joshuas final speech (cf. line
4 with Joshua 24:4-5), and that topic, together with the combination of
speech and hymnic elements/prayer, makes it at least possible, if not
likely, that 4Q379 and the Masada texts reflect the same composition.
Talmon (pp. 1567) likewise recognized certain similarities between this
text and 4Q378379 (4QapocrJosh
a,b
), although according to him they do
not reflect the same composition.
The text contains no identifiable name(s) connecting it with the book
of Joshua, but the identification is made on the basis of the phrases used.
The fragment reflects ideas from Joshuas last speeches, especially the
idea that God helped his people in their struggle against the enemies:
Line 5 awlw hybywab wm[l jl?n
Line 7 hra rbd ?lpn awlw hl ab hyl[ rbd ?ra
However, while the speeches in the biblical book are mainly hortatory
and admonitory, the Masada fragment has a different tone. That text
combines the speech with words of praise, and probably also with a
prayer or hymn. The words ynwda lw ?dg , reconstructed by us on the last
line, and continuing with a text that has not been preserved, were
probably preceded by a closed paragraph, and would be a suitable
beginning for such a hymnic unit. If this assumption is correct, one is
referred for comparison to 4Q379 22 i and ii 57 that contain a similar
hymnic unit that precedes Joshuas curse on the rebuilder of Jericho.
The spelling of hdawm on line A 8 of this document is identical to the
writing of that word in several Qumran documents, and may indicate a
Qumran origin for the manuscript as a whole.
The use of the divine appellations la (line A 6), = name (line A
4), and ynwda (line A 8) rather than the Tetragrammaton also speaks for a
Qumran sectarian origin.
V. 4QpaleoParaJosh (= 4Qpaleo apocrJosh
d
?)
Little is known about the very fragmentary 4QpaleoParaJosh (4Q123,
published in DJD IX), dating to the last half of the first century BCE,
which contains merely a few words and phrases from Joshua 21
20 CHAPTER SEVEN
(especially forms of rgm), while deviating from the known texts of that
chapter (cf. 2 1 dyb hw? db[ hm presenting a slightly different form of
Josh 21:2). This work may reflect yet another copy of the apocryphon of
Joshua, as its fragmentary remains of Joshua 21 run parallel to 4Q379
(4QapocrJosh
b
) 1 and a small fragment of 4Q522 9 i, even though there
are no verbal overlaps.
If indeed 4QpaleoParaJosh contains segments of the rewritten book of
Joshua, it is significant to note that this work was written, among other
things, in paleo-Hebrew characters.
VI. Coverage of the apocryphon of Joshua
The various fragments of the Joshua cycle possibly represent segments of
the same composition, named here apocryphon of Joshua. Segments of
most chapters of the book of Joshua are represented in the following
fragments:
15

a. The earliest part of Joshuas career is probably represented by the
Israelites mourning for Moses, represented in 4Q379 14.
b. An account of the transferal of leadership from Moses to Joshua
(Joshua 1) is contained in 4Q379 34.
c. The crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 3) is covered by 4Q378 12 and
probably additional fragments of that manuscript.
d. Several aspects of the movements of the ark in the first chapters of
Joshua are described in 4Q522 8 ii and probably also in 4Q379 26.
e. The curse on the rebuilder of Jericho (Josh 6:26) together with a
prophetic vision regarding his identity is expressed in 4Q379 22 ii,
preceded by hymns in 4Q379 22 i.
f. The Achan incident (Joshua 7) is probably alluded to in 4Q378 6 i.
g. The blessings mentioned in 4Q378 1517 may reflect the ceremony
on or opposite Mt. Gerizim (Josh 8:30-35), even though Newsom
connects them with the crossing of the Jordan (chapter 3) and the
assembly at Gilgal (chapters 45).
h. The ruse of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) is reflected in 4Q522 9 ii and
also in 4Q378 22 (see above).
i. Joshuas restraining of the sun in chapter 10 is reflected in 4Q378 26,
cf. especially line 5.
j. A summary of Joshuas victories over the inhabitants of Canaan is
reflected in 4Q379 3 (parallel to Joshua 13).
k. Segments of the tribal lists in Joshua 1520 described as the

15
The dimension of the rewriting of the biblical stories in 4Q522 is analyzed thoroughly
by Dimant, Apocryphon, 200204.
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 21
conquests of Joshua, as well as of the lists of localities not conquered by
Joshua, are contained in 4Q522 9 i as well as in smaller fragments of that
composition. Similar lists are contained in 5Q9 (5QapocrJosh?) and in
4Q379 1. See also:
l. The Levitical cities in Joshua 21 are mentioned in 4Q379 1, in a small
fragment ascribed to 4Q522 9 i, and in 4QpaleoParaJosh.
m. A summary of the conquests in accordance with Gods plan,
described in Josh 21:43-45 in Gods words, are related in 4Q378 11, in
Joshuas words. For line 2, cf. Josh 21:45 and for line 3, cf. Josh 21:44. The
same episode is also reflected in Mas apocrJosh.
n. Joshuas final speech (chapters 2324) may be reflected in 4Q378 19
ii and in 4Q379 17 (cf. line 4 with Josh 24:4-5). The same episode may be
reflected also in Mas apocrJosh.
Beyond the aforementioned compositions devoted to Joshua, the
figure of Joshua is mentioned only rarely in the Qumran texts: 1QDibre
Moshe (1QDM) I 12; Damascus Document (CD) V 4.
VII. Qumran Authorship?
Because of the uncertainties concerning the relation between the six
different manuscripts of the rewritten book of Joshua, the issue of their
possible Qumran authorship has to be dealt with separately and may be
answered affirmatively for some manuscripts, although the evidence is
not clear.
Talmon considers 4Q378379 and probably MasParaJosh to be Essene
and accordingly he attempts to explain why the yahad would be
interested in this biblical book.
Puech
16
considers 4Q522 to be an Essene document, and makes
certain connections between the views of the Essenes and the content of
that document. Likewise, Dimant claims that several passages espouse
ideas close to those expressed in works from the circle of the Qumran
community.
17

On the other hand, Eshel, in a brief study considers the Joshua
apocryphon to be a non-Qumranic composition.
18

There are a few signs of a possible sectarian authorship of some of the
rewritten Joshua texts from Qumran and Masada:
a. An isolated phrase, l wh ttlw?, occurs without context in 4Q378 20
ii 5.

16
Puech, Pierre de Sion, 691.
17
Dimant, Apocryphon, 181.
18
No precise arguments were given by Eshel (see n. 8).
22 CHAPTER SEVEN
b. 4Q379 12 5 determines the date of the crossing of the Jordan
according to the chronology of the jubilee years, which could suggest a
sectarian origin (cf. 4QCommGen A col. I and the book of Jubilees).
c. That 4Q379 (4QapocrJosh
b
) was held in high esteem at Qumran is
shown by the fact that it was quoted by 4QTest, which is definitely a
sectarian composition.
19

d. Among the texts analyzed here, only MasParaJosh, found at
Masada, seems to reflect the custom known from several Qumran
compositions of avoiding the Tetragrammaton and using other divine
appellations instead. See IV above. On the other hand, 4Q378, 4Q379,
and 4Q522 freely use the divine appellations hwhy, yhla, and hwla.
The Qumran scribal practice is reflected in three of the Joshua
documents. However, these features do not render the manuscripts as
being Qumran texts; it only is made probable that the texts were copied
by Qumran scribes.
20

4Q522 is written plene, including such typical Qumran forms as _ w_ yar
in line 7, hktam in line 11, and hkm[ in one of the fragments, but no
additional forms typical of the Qumran scribal practice are found in
these texts.
4Q378 contains a mixture of short second person singular forms, such
as m[, and long ones (such as hkm[), but the long ones are more frequent.
It also contains forms of the htlfq type. It contains a spelling hwm (3 ii
and 4 5) as well as other features of the Qumran scribal practice.
The form hdawm on line 8 of MasParaJosh recurs in several Qumran
documents, and may indicate a Qumran origin for the text as a whole.
VIII. Date
Beyond the paleographical dates of the manuscripts, which are not a
good indication of the period of authorship, the curse against the
rebuilder of Jericho in 4Q379 22 ii is probably the only datable element in
the composition. Several scholars have suggested that the object of that

19
A portion of this document (frg. 22 715) is quoted as the last section of 4QTest. On the
other hand, according to H. Eshel, 4QTest quoted from 4Q379. Among other things, Eshel
claims that 4Q379 (4QapocrJosh
b
) quoted from 4QTest since the former includes no
actualizing material similar to the curse. However, if the section is viewed as a prophecy, it
is paralleled by the mantic character of 4Q522 9 ii, as noted below. See H. Eshel, The
Historical Background of 4QTest in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries, Zion 55 (1990)
14150 (Heb.); idem, The Historical Background of the Pesher Interpreting Joshuas Curse
on the Rebuilder of Jericho, RevQ 15 (1992) 4139. Against this view, see T. H. Lim, The
Psalms of Joshua (4Q379 frg. 22 col. 2): A Reconsideration of Its Text, JJS 44 (1993) 309
12, esp. 309, n. 8.
20
See Scribal Practices, 26173.
REWRITTEN BOOK OF JOSHUA 23
curse is Simon or John Hyrcanus, in which case the composition should
be considered anti-Hasmonean. If this assumption is correct, the
composition would have been written either in the late second or early
first century BCE.
21

The theological discussion in 4Q522 as to why Jerusalem was not
made a religious center in the days of Joshua may have been written
from the point of view of the Jerusalem priesthood, but this element is
not datable.


21
See Eshel, Historical Background (see n. 19).





CHAPTER EIGHT

THE TEXTUAL BASIS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS
OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

One is led to believe that two distinct types of modern translation of the
Hebrew Bible exist: scholarly translations included in critical
commentaries, and translations prepared for believing communities,
Christian and Jewish. In practice, however, the two types of translation
are now rather similar in outlook and their features need to be
scrutinized.
Scholarly translations included in most critical commentaries are
eclectic, that is, their point of departure is MT, but they also draw much
on all other textual sources and include emendations when the known
textual sources do not yield a satisfactory reading. In a way, these
translations present critical editions of the Hebrew Bible, since they
reflect the critical selection process of the available textual evidence.
These translations claim to reflect the Urtext of the biblical books, even if
this term is usually not used explicitly in the description of the
translation. The only difference between these translations and a critical
edition of the texts in the original languages is that they are worded in a
modern language and usually lack a critical apparatus defending the
text-critical choices.
The publication of these eclectic scholarly translations reflects a
remarkable development. While there is virtually no existing
reconstruction of the Urtext of the complete Bible in Hebrew (although
the original text of several individual books and chapters has been
reconstructed),
1
such reconstructions do exist in translation. These

1
The following studies (arranged chronologically) present a partial or complete
reconstruction of (parts of) biblical books: J. Meinhold, Die Jesajaerzhlungen Jesaja 3639
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898); N. Peters, Beitrge zur Text- und Literarkritik
sowie zur Erklrung der Bcher Samuel (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1899) 55862 (1 Sam
16:119:18); C. H. Cornill, Die metrischen Stcke des Buches Jeremia (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1901);
F. Giesebrecht, Jeremias Metrik am Texte dargestellt (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1905); D. H. Mller, Komposition und Strophenbau (Alte und Neue Beitrge, XIV
Jahresbericht der Isr.-Theol. Lehranstalt in Wien; Vienna: Hlder, 1907); P. Haupt, Critical
Notes on Esther, Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of W. R. Harper (Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1908) II.194204; J. Begrich, Der Psalm des Hiskia (FRLANT 25;
2 CHAPTER EIGHT

translations, such as included in the volumes of the International Critical
Commentary (ICC) and the Biblischer Kommentar (BK) delete, add,
transpose or correct words or verses in MT on the basis of the LXX or a
Qumran text, and present a reconstructed text which often differs greatly
from MT. These reconstructions have not been suggested in the
languages of the Bible, Hebrew and Aramaic, probably because scholars
feel that they lack the criteria or tools for creating such reconstructions in
the original languages. As a result, scholars are more daring in translated
tools, even though in actual fact the two enterprises are equally daring. It
is probably the distance between the original languages of the Bible and
the familiar European language that facilitates an enterprise in
translation that is not attempted in the original languages. In a way this
is strange, since only a very small number of problems are avoided when
the reconstruction is presented in translation; most of the difficulties
concerning the reconstruction of the Urtext also have to be faced in
European languages.
A second type of translation is intended for believing communities.
We focus on the theoretical background of such translations.
From the outset, translations intended for faith communities are
distinct from the translations included in critical commentaries.
Scholarly translations cater to the academic community and as such are
entitled to be vague or to omit difficult words in the middle of the text;
they also permit themselves to be daring in their reconstruction of the
original text. They allow themselves to use different typefaces or colors
to indicate different layers of composition or transmission, etc. All these
elements are foreign to translations produced for believing communities,

Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926); C. C. Torrey, The Archetype of Psalms 14 and
53, JBL 46 (1927) 18692; K. Budde, Psalm 14 und 53, JBL 47 (1928) 16083; P. Ruben,
Recensio und Restitutio (London: A. Probsthain, 1936); F. X. Wutz, Systematische Wege von der
Septuaginta zum hebrischen Urtext (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1937); W. F. Albright, The
Psalm of Habakkuk, in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 1950) 118; F. M. Cross, Jr. and D. N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic
Poetry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1950; 2d ed.: Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,
1975); iidem, The Song of Miriam, JNES 14 (1955) 23750; F. M. Cross, Jr., A Royal Song
of Thanksgiving II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18, JBL 72 (1953) 1534; L. A. F. Le Mat, Textual
Criticism and Exegesis of Psalm XXXVI (Studia Theol. Rheno-Traiectina 3; Utrecht: Kemink,
1957); M. Naor, Exodus 115, A Reconstruction, in Sefer S. Yeivin (ed. S. Abramsky;
Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1970) 24282 (Heb.); P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 4686; B. Mazar, hgbwrym sr ldwyd, z ldwyd (Heb.;
Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964) 24867 = Canaan and Israel (Heb.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,
1974) 183207; A. Gelston, Isaiah 52:1353:12: An Eclectic Text and a Supplementary Note
on the Hebrew Manuscript Kennicott 96, JSS 35 (1990) 187211; P. G. Borbone, Il libro del
profeta Osea, Edizione critica del testo ebraico (Quaderni di Henoch 2; Torino: Silvio Zamorani,
1987 [1990]).
TEXTUAL BASIS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS 3
as these are intended for use in a confessional environment or by the
general public.
In recent decades, the two types of translation have become almost
indistinguishable and often share the same principles. Translations
meant for faith communities now often follow the principles of scholarly
translations. There are two types of such modern translation and our
attention here is directed to the second:
1. A small group of modern translations claim to faithfully represent
one of the standard texts of the Bible. The majority represent MT, but
some translate the Vulgate (in the case of several Catholic translations),
2

the Peshitta,
3
or the LXX.
4

2. The majority of the modern translations represent the biblical
witnesses eclectically. As with the translations included in critical
commentaries, they are mainly based on MT, but when the translators
felt that MT could not be maintained, they included readings from one of
the ancient translations, mainly the LXX, and in recent years also from
the Qumran scrolls. Translations intended for believing communities
usually present fewer non-Masoretic readings than scholarly
translations, but the principles are identical, and it is the principles that
count. These translations also contain a few emendations (conjectures).
The decisions behind the inclusion of non-Masoretic readings reflect a
scholarly decision procedure in the areas of textual criticism and
exegesis. However, the reader is only rarely told how and why such
decisions were made.
Most translators receive little guidance in text-critical decisions.
5

Reliance on one of the critical editions of the Hebrew Bible is of little

2
E.g., The Old Testament, Newly Translated from the Latin Vulgate, by Msgr. Ronald A.
Knox (London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1949; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1954).
3
G. M. Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts Containing the Old and New
Testaments Translated from the Peshitta, The Authorized Bible of the Church of the East
(Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1933).
4
Several confessional translations of the LXX are being prepared for the Eastern
European churches for whom the LXX has a sacred status. For scholarly translations of the
LXX, see those listed in S. P. Brock et al., A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1973) and Dogniez, Bibliography.
5
Some guidance is given by the series Helps for Translators, such as in D. J. Clark and N.
Mundhenk, A Translators Handbook on the Books of Obadiah and Micah (London/New
York/Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1982); D. J. Clark and H. A. Hatton, A Translators
Handbook on the Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (New York: United Bible Societies,
1989). See http://www.logos.com/products on this series of 21 volumes. Some volumes
focus more on the options provided by the different English translations, and only rarely
resort to the ancient versions. Other volumes resort much to the ancient texts, e.g. R. L.
Omanson and Ph. A. Noss, A Handbook on the Book of EstherThe Hebrew and Greek Texts
(New York: United Bible Societies, 1997).
4 CHAPTER EIGHT

help, for the main edition used, BHS, mentions preferable readings in the
apparatus rather than in the text, and in such an impractical and
subjective way that they cannot guide the translator. BHQ is more
practical for the user, and may create a unified, even ecumenical
approach, but its unavoidable subjectivity is equally problematical as
BHS (see chapter 18*). Besides, presently the preferred readings of BHQ,
prepared under the aegis of the UBS, are not meant to be guide new
translation projects sponsored by the UBS.
The case of the New Testament is distinctly different. The decision-
making process was much easier for the translation of this corpus than
for the Hebrew Bible, since in the last few centuries a tradition has
developed to translate the New Testament from existing critical editions
of the Greek text. Thus the Revised Version (18811885) was based on the
edition of Westcott and Hort,
6
Moffatts translation
7
used the edition of
H. von Soden, and the RSV
8
was based on the 17th edition of Nestles
critical reconstruction of the text. Moreover, a special edition was
prepared by Aland and others to meet the needs of the translators.
9
This
volume provides: (1) a critical apparatus restricted for the most part to
variant readings significant for translators or necessary for the
establishing of the text; (2) an indication of the relative degree of
certainty for each reading adopted in the text; and (3) a full citation of
representative evidence for each reading selected.
10

In the area of the Hebrew Bible, however, there is little guidance for
textual decisions. The rich and learned volumes of the UBS provide some
guidance,
11
but they are of only limited practical help for translators
(they are more valuable for textual critics). Indeed, Scanlin reports of the
difficulties experienced by translators in using the vast amount of
information contained in these volumes.
12
These volumes cover only a
very limited number of textual variations, viz., details in which modern
translations differ from MT. But translators need guidance regarding all

6
B. T. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge:
University Press, 1881; London/New York: Macmillan, 1898).
7
J. Moffatt, The Bible, A New Translation (New York/London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1922,
19241925).
8
The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version (London: Collins, 1952).
9
K. Aland et al., The Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1966).
10
This edition is accompanied by B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament (3d ed.; London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), intended to further
assist the translators.
11
HOTTP and Barthlemy, Critique textuelle.
12
H. P. Scanlin, The Presuppositions of HOTTP and the Translator, BT 43 (1992) 101
16.
TEXTUAL BASIS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS 5
the differences among the ancient textual witnesses, necessitating a
much wider coverage in the handbooks.
We now turn to the theoretical aspects of the textual background of
modern translations of the Hebrew Bible meant for faith communities.
The studies written in this area pointed out the numerous differences
among the various translations. Rger, Albrektson, Scanlin, McKane,
Locher, and many others described these differences as deriving from
the different text-critical background of the translations.
13
Among other
things, Scanlin noted how certain modern translations frequently
deviated from MT, especially in 1 Samuel, where MT is often corrupt.
Other scholars simply listed the differences among the textual witnesses
that could result in different modern translations, and not knowing
which translation to prefer, they raised their hands in despair.
14

There is, however, one principle that almost all translators have in
common, the theoretical background of which has, to the best of my
knowledge, not been established. It is more or less axiomatic in modern

13
H. P. Rger, Was bersetzen Wir?Fragen zur Textbasis, die sich aus der Traditions-
und Kanonsgechichte ergeben, in Die bersetzung der BibelAufgabe der Theologie,
Stuttgarter Symposion 1984 (ed. J. Gnilka and H. P. Rger; Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 1985) 57
64; B. Albrektson, Vom bersetzen des Alten Testaments, in Glaube und Gerechtigkeit.
Rafael Gyllenberg in Memoriam (Helsinki Vammala: Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran, 1983) 5
18; Scanlin, HOTTP (see n. 12 above); W. McKane, Textual and Philological Notes on the
Book of Proverbs with Special Reference to the New English Bible, Transactions of the
Glasgow University Oriental Society 19711972, 24 (1974) 7690; C. Locher, Der Psalter der
Einheitsbersetzung und die Textkritik, I, Bib 58 (1977) 31341; ibid., II, 59 (1978) 4979.
For brief discussions of the problems involved, see: G. C. Aalders, Some Aspects of Bible
Translation Concerning the Old Testament, BT 4 (1953) 97102; idem, Translator or
Textual Critic? BT 7 (1956) 1516; W. A. Irwin, Textual Criticism and Old Testament
Translation, BT 5 (1954) 548; R. Sollamo, The Source Text for the [Finnish] Translation of
the Old Testament, BT 37 (1986) 31922. The most thorough study in this area is S. Daley,
The Textual Basis of English Translations of the Hebrew Bible, unpubl. Pd.D. diss., Hebrew
University, Jerusalem, forthcoming.
14
See, for example, A. Schenker, Was bersetzen Wir?Fragen zur Textbasis, die sich
aus der Textkritik ergeben, in bersetzung der Bibel (see n. 13), 6580. Schenker discusses in
detail the pericope of the freeing of the slaves in Jeremiah 34 in the MT and LXX and
analyzes the theological differences between the two texts. E. Ulrich, Double Literary
Editions of Biblical Narratives and Reflections on Determining the Form to be Translated,
in idem, DSS, 3450 presents the reader with evidence of the availability in ancient times of
various parallel forms of the Hebrew Bible, which the author names here double literary
editions. The following examples are presented of such double editions: the two versions
of the story of David and Goliath, juxtaposed in MT, the two different versions of 1 Samuel
12 now presented in the MT and LXX, the MT version of Exodus and that of the SP and
4QpaleoExod
m
, and the short and long editions of Jeremiah. On pp. 11116, Ulrich presents
Reflections on determining which form of the biblical text to translate on the basis of this
textual evidence. The author claims that the parallel versions were produced in Hebrew by
the Jewish community prior to the emergence of Christianity, and in the wake of this Bible
translators are faced with a question: how do we go about selecting the form of the text that
should be translated?
6 CHAPTER EIGHT

translation enterprises that the translation be eclectic; that is, that MT
should be followed in principle, but occasionally abandoned. At the
same time, the modern translations show that there is no agreement in
matters of detail, as it is impossible to define when MT should be
abandoned, and which variants or emendations should be adopted in the
translation.
The textual eclecticism and subjectivity in the translation of the
Hebrew Bible is ubiquitous.
15
The principles behind this approach have
been described by several scholars and translators who expressed a view
on the theoretical aspects of the translation procedure. Among them,
Nida is one of the most prominent representatives:
16

. . . in the case of the OT most translators no longer follow the Masoretic
Text (the standard Hebrew text) blindly, for the Qumran evidence has
clearly shown the diversity of traditions lying behind the LXX. It is
important to note that translators are increasingly willing to indicate the
diversities of textual evidence. In some circles this change has seemed to
represent an intellectual revolution.
In the preface to the New International Version (NIV), the principles
are phrased as follows:
17

For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as
published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout
. . . The translators also consulted the most important early versions--the
Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion . . . Readings from
these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text
seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism
showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide
the correct readings. Such instances are footnoted.
In the Introduction to the Old Testament of the REB, the translation
enterprise is described as follows (pp. xvxvii):
Despite the care used in the copying of the Massoretic Text, it contains
errors, in the correction of which there are witnesses to be heard . . .
Hebrew texts which are outside the Massoretic tradition: the Samaritan
text and the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . the ancient versions . . . archaeological
discoveries . . . the study of the cognate Semitic languages.

15
To mention just a few translations: JB = The Jerusalem Bible (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1970); RSV; NRSV; NAB; NEB; REB; La Sainte Bible, traduite en franais sous la
direction de l'Ecole biblique de Jrusalem (Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 1956); Die Heilige Schrift,
Altes und Neues Testament (Bonn, 1966); Einheitsbersetzung der Heiligen Schrift (Stuttgart:
Katholische Bibelanstalt, 1974).
16
E. A. Nida, Theories of Translation, ABD 6 (New York: Abingdon, 1992) 514.
17
The Holy Bible, New International Version; Containing the Old Testament and the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978).
TEXTUAL BASIS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS 7
Albrektson makes similar remarks on the preparation of the Swedish
translation:
18

. . . Masoretic text. This is, on the whole, a good text . . . this text is in
many places corrupt; it can and must be corrected. This may be done by
means of other Hebrew texts, especially the Dead Sea scrolls . . .
Corrections may also be made with the aid of the ancient translations
. . . and sometimes it may even be necessary to resort to conjectural
emendation of the text. According to the principles of the new
translation, we should use all the resources of modern textual criticism,
and this . . . is the first time that this has been done in a Swedish version
of the Old Testament.
The same scholar also compared the approaches used by the different
translations:
19

. . . if one tries to summarize the principles stated in these different
translations, it is rather difficult to discover any important differences or
clear contrasts between them. If one tries to listen to the manner in
which these common principles are stated, there is a definite difference
in accent and emphasis. And if one examines how these principles have
been put into practice, the difference becomes greater still . . . even if
there is substantial agreement as to the principles to be followed in the
choice of the textual basis of the translation, the practice may vary a
great deal.
Common to most scholars and translators, thus, is the feeling that MT
should be the base text for any translation, but that often other readings
should be preferred (or in the words of Albrektson, that MT should be
corrected). A preference for the Qumran texts is voiced by several
scholars and translators, although probably only the NAB has used the
evidence of the scrolls extensively. Albrektson
20
and Payne,
21
among
others, noticed much use of the LXX in the NAB and JB by on the basis of
the description in the preface and of the notes appended to the NAB.
Greenspoon systematically studied the use of the LXX in the various
translations.
22
Gordon reviewed the inclusion in some modern

18
B. Albrektson, The Swedish Old Testament Translation Project: Principles and
Problems, in Theory and Practice of Translation, Nobel Symposium 39, Stockholm 1976 (ed. L.
Grhs et al.; Bern: P. Lang, 1978) 15164. The quote is from p. 152.
19
B. Albrektson, Textual Criticism and the Textual Basis of a Translation of the Old
Testament, BT 26 (1975) 31424. The quote is from p. 318.
20
Albrektson, Textual Criticism, 317.
21
D. F. Payne, Old Testament Textual CriticismIts Principles and Practice Apropos of
Recent English Versions, TynBul 25 (1974) 99112.
22
L. Greenspoon, Its All Greek to Me: The Septuagint in Modern English Versions of
the Bible, in Cox, VII Congress, 121.
8 CHAPTER EIGHT

translations of elements from the Targumim.
23
When non-Masoretic
elements are adopted by a translation, that translation takes the form of a
true critical edition, because in such instances the MT readings,
sometimes mentioned in an apparatus of notes, have been replaced by
other readings. Thus, the NEB and REB notes contain such remarks as
Heb. adds, verses . . . are probably misplaced, so some MSS, Heb.
omits, probable reading, etc. In the NAB and NEB, the non-Masoretic
readings that have been accepted in the translation have been recorded
in valuable monographs,
24
which are a good source for learning about
the text-critical approach of these translations. Among other things, the
notes in the NEB show that this translation often accepted details from
the ancient versions that were probably never found in their Hebrew
Vorlage, but were exponents of their translation technique in such
grammatical categories as number, person, pronouns, and prepositions.
25

If the faith communities pay so much tribute to modern critical
scholarship, this approach should be appreciated, in spite of the
subjectivity and eclecticism involved. Thus, modern translations
produced for faith communities do not differ much from scholarly
translations included in commentary series. Exactly the same principles
are invoked, and often the same scholars are involved. Modern
translations for faith communities have necessarily often become
reconstructions of an Urtext. The main difference between these
translations and their scholarly counterparts is probably that the latter
are more daring, but this is merely a matter of quantity, not of principle.
The principles involved in the text-critical decisions behind the modern
translations were spelled out well by HOTTP, in a way that would be
acceptable to most scholars.
In spite of the obvious advantages of a critical procedure in the
creation of translations, this approach is problematical:
1. The main problem is the eclecticism itself, which some people
regard as arrogance and which involves the subjective selection of

23
R. P. Gordon, The Citation of the Targums in Recent English Bible Translations (RSV,
JB, NEB), JJS 26 (1975) 5060.
24
Brockington, Hebrew Text; Textual Notes on the New American Bible (St. Anthonys
Guild; Patterson, N.J. [n.d.]).
25
Gen 48:20 MT b
read kb with Sept. (-| uu. |)
Isa 20:2 MT dyb
read la with Sept. (cc)
Isa 25:2 MT ry[m
read yr[ with Sept. (c `-.)
Isa 32:1 MT yrlw
read yrw with Sept. (-c. c cvc|t-)
TEXTUAL BASIS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS 9
readings found in the ancient translations and the Qumran manuscripts.
Not everyone may be aware of the subjective nature of reconstructing
Hebrew readings from the translations, and even more so, of the
evaluation of textual readings. What is meant by evaluation is the
comparison of readings, of MT and the other sources, with the intention
of determining the single most appropriate reading in the context, or the
original reading, or the reading from which all others developed.
26

This subjectivity is so pervasive that well-based solutions seem to be
impossible. In spite of the remarks in the introduction to HOTTP, there
are probably no established rules of internal evaluation (on the basis of
the biblical context), and most external evidence (relating to the nature
and age of the translations and manuscripts) is irrelevant. The rules of
evaluation to be used, mainly that of the lectio difficilior, have the
appearance of objectivity, but they are often impractical and their
employment is subjective. In the textual criticism of the New Testament
the situation is easier, it seems, since in that area arguments based on
external evidence are valid, and hence established critical editions of the
New Testament have included variant readings in the critical text itself.
The situation is probably also easier in New Testament textual criticism
as the textual evidence is more extensive and a shorter interval separated
the time of the autographs from our earliest textual evidence. The range
of textual variation is probably also much narrower in the case of the
New Testament than in that of the Hebrew Bible.
Subjectivity in textual evaluation seems to be in order since the whole
translation enterprise is subjective. When we determine the meanings of
words and the relation between words and sentences do we not also
invoke subjective judgments? But the latter kind of subjectivity is
acceptable, since it is a necessary part of the translation procedure. At the
same time, subjectivity regarding textual decisions is not a necessary part
of the translation procedure, since one may always turn to an alternative
approach, viz., to use a single source as the basis for a translation.

26
A lengthy discussion was devoted to this aspect in TCHB, chapter 6, summarized as
follows (pp. 30910):
The upshot of this analysis, then, is that to some extent textual evaluation cannot be bound
by any fixed rules. It is an art in the full sense of the word, a faculty which can be developed,
guided by intuition based on wide experience. It is the art of defining the problems and
finding arguments for and against the originality of readings . . . Needless to say, one will
often suggest solutions which differ completely from the one suggested on the previous
day . . . Therefore, it is the choice of the contextually most appropriate reading that is the
main task of the textual critic . . . This procedure is as subjective as subjective can be.
Common sense is the main guide, although abstract rules are often also helpful. In modern
times, scholars are often reluctant to admit the subjective nature of textual evaluation, so
that an attempt is often made, conscious or unconscious, to create a level of artificial
objectivity by the frequent application of abstract rules.
10 CHAPTER EIGHT

As a result of this subjective approach towards translating, each
community will have a different textual base, and hence a different Bible.
Some of these Bibles will be very different from the known ones.
27
These
discrepancies usually pertain to small details, but some large details are
also involved. Thus against all other translations, the NRSV includes a
complete section from 4QSam
a
at the end of 1 Samuel 10 explaining the
background of the siege of Jabesh Gilead by Nahash the Ammonite. By
the same token, there is no reason why one of the other modern
translations should not represent the shorter text of the LXX of Jeremiah
and of the Qumran manuscripts 4QJer
b,d
, which present a somewhat
different picture of the book from MT. There is also no reason why the
translation of certain biblical episodes should not be expanded or
shortened in accord with the text of the LXX or a Qumran scroll. For
example, the story of David and Goliath is much shorter and probably
more original in the LXX than in MT. And why not base the translation
of the chronology of Kings on that of the LXX? Several scholars believe
that the LXX or the so-called A Text of Esther is more authentic than MT,
and by a similar reasoning one of these texts could be included in a
modern translation of Esther. In the present generation, translators, and
the textual critics behind them, have not yet dared to take these steps,
but such decisions may be made in the future since many scholars
believe that in these matters the LXX reflects an earlier text.
At this point, it is in order to dwell on the legitimacy of eclecticism in
the case of the translations of the Hebrew Bible. While in scholarly
translations eclecticism is an accepted practice, in confessional
translations this approach is problematical because of the added public
responsibility of such translations. Although the eclecticism of modern
Bible translations has often been discussed,
28
its legitimacy has rarely
been analyzed, as far as I know, with reference to translation enterprises
within a Church context.

27
Over the centuries, Christian communities became accustomed to using different
translations, and therefore they continue to be open to the reality of such differences. Since
the public is used to the availability of translations in different languages and different
styles within a single language, differences based on textual data are just another level of
discrepancy. The fact that the biblical text differs in these translations probably disturbs the
reader less than it should do from a scholarly point of view.
28
See J. Barr, After Five Years: A Retrospect on Two Major Translations of the Bible,
HeyJ 15 (1974) 381405; B. Ljungberg et al., Att verstta Gamla testamentetTexter,
kommentarer, riktlinjer (Statens offentliga utredningar 1974:33; Stockholm: Betnkande av
1971 ars bibelkommitt fr Gamla testamentet, 1974); Payne, Old Testament Textual
Criticism, 99112; B. Albrektson, Textual Criticism; idem, The Swedish Old Testament
Translation Project; K. R. Crim, Versions, English, IDBSup, 9338; A. Schenker, Was
bersetzen Wir?; H. P. Rger, Was bersetzen Wir?; and the discussions cited in these
studies and in notes 14 ff. above.
TEXTUAL BASIS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS 11
Within the Church, this eclecticism was imported from scholarship,
long ago for the Protestant churches, and in 1943 also for Catholicism:
The papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu: Encyclical of Pope Pius XII
on Promoting Biblical Studies, Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary
of Providentissimus Deus, September 30, 1943 does allow for the
correction of errors, while it is vague on eclecticism. Since this encyclical
is central also to some of the following remarks, the relevant passages are
quoted verbatim.
29

2. Beyond the text-critical discussions of details, scholars and
translators have struggled, since the publication of HOTTP, with the
question of which text form should be translated. HOTTP presents a
lucid discussion of this issue, referring to various stages in the
development of the Hebrew text, and it concludes that translations ought

29
17. The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism [i.e.,
textual criticism] was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when among the precepts he
recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to
possess a corrected text. The correction of the codicesso says the most distinguished
Doctor of the Churchshould first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know
the Divine Scripture so that the uncorrected may give place to the corrected. [De doctr.
christ. ii, 21; PL 34, col. 40.] In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual
criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane
writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very
reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the
sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from corruptions due to the carelessness of
the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange
and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes (my italics, E. T.), which are wont to
make their way into writings handed down through many centuries.
18. It is scarcely necessary to observe that this criticism, which some fifty years ago not a
few made use of quite arbitrarily and often in such wise that one would say they did so to
introduce into the sacred text their own preconceived ideas, today has rules so firmly
established and secure, that it has become a most valuable aid to the purer and more
accurate editing of the sacred text and that any abuse can easily be discovered. Nor is it
necessary here to call to mindsince it is doubtless familiar and evident to all students of
Sacred Scriptureto what extent namely the Church has held in honor these studies in
textual criticism from the earliest centuries down even to the present day.
19. Today, therefore, since this branch of science has attained to such high perfection, it
is the honorable, though not always easy, task of students of the Bible to procure by every
means that as soon as possible may be duly published by Catholics editions of the Sacred
Books and of ancient versions, brought out in accordance with these standards, which, that
is to say, unite the greatest reverence for the sacred text with an exact observance of all the
rules of criticism. And let all know that this prolonged labor is not only necessary for the
right understanding of the divinely-given writings, but also is urgently demanded by that
piety by which it behooves us to be grateful to the God of all providence, Who from the
throne of His majesty has sent these books as so many paternal letters to His own children.
Quoted from The Papal Encyclicals 19391958 (ed. C. Carlen IHM; n.p.: McGrath, 1981) 65
79 (here 6970, on The Importance of Textual Criticism). This encyclical was brought to
my attention by J. Scott, who also referred me to J. A. Fitzmyers discussion of its content:
The Biblical Commissions Document from 1993: The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church
(SubBi 18; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995).
12 CHAPTER EIGHT

to be based not on the absolute Urtext of the Bible (stage 1), but on the
reconstructed base of all known textual evidence (stage 2).
30
The
implication of these views is that when departing from MT, Bible
translations should have leaned towards the LXX prior to 1947, being the
best available non-Masoretic text, and since that time towards both the
LXX and the Qumran scrolls.
31
Subsequent translations will differ yet
again if a new manuscript find is made in the Judean Desert or
elsewhere.
However, it seems that a Bible translation enterprise should not be
involved in everlasting scholarly discussions of the theoretical basis of
the translation such as we have seen in recent years. There simply are no
answers to the theoretical questions regarding the original text(s) posed
by HOTTP and others. Furthermore, it is questionable whether religious
communities should look up to scholarship for answers if, according to
most scholars, there are no answers. Every generation of scholars will
have different views concerning which text or texts should be translated
and which stage in the development of the Hebrew Bible should be
aimed at.
3. Most modern translations have been prepared for use within the
Church, rendering it appropriate to dwell on the approach towards the
Bible within faith communities. Christianity accepts various forms of
Holy Scripture, in the original languages and in translation. When
presenting the Hebrew form of the Bible, Christianity has traditionally

30
This policy was criticized by Scanlin, HOTTP, 1045 (see n. 12 above): What text do
we translate? Is the primary focus of interest the Urtext or a later canonical form of the text?
B. Albrektson, one of the first outspoken critics of the policy of HOTTP regarding
emendation, ascribes little normative value to a stage 2, the earliest attested text, or 3, the
proto-Masoretic text.
31
Many of the translators preferences based on the ancient translations are
questionable. Thus, most of the readings referring to small details in grammatical
categories accepted by the NEB and recorded by Brockington, Hebrew Text (see n. 24
above), refer to grammatical deviations of the translators and not to scribal corruptions. A
more substantial example is found in 1 Sam 1:23 where MT reads May the Lord bring His
word to fulfillment, and where the reading of the LXX and 4QSam
a
(May the Lord bring
your resolve to fulfillment) has been adopted by the NAB and NRSV. This preference
pertains to a reading that seems to be equally as good as that of MT, and accordingly both
readings could have been original. In v 9 MT Hannah stood up after she had eaten and
drunk at Shilo, the NAB omitted and drunk with codex B of the LXX (after one such
meal at Shiloh) and added and presented herself before the Lord with the same
translation. Again, this is a choice based on literary judgment. Two verses later, in
Hannahs prayer, Hannah promises that I will give him to the Lord for as long as he
lives, followed in the translation by neither wine nor liquor shall he drink . . . with the
LXX. These and numerous other deviations from MT in the NAB are based on literary
judgments of variant readings. These judgments are not incorrect, but they are based on
subjective literary judgments beyond the argument of textual corruption.
TEXTUAL BASIS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS 13
accepted MT, certainly since the Reformation. Moreover, several
Protestant theologians of the seventeenth century accepted the sanctity
of the vowel points, which by implication involved acceptance of the
precise form of the consonants of MT. Accordingly, the translations of
Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Geneva Bible were based on MT; so was the
translation by Luther, and the King James Version (KJV), based on the
Rabbinic Bible. At the time of these translations, the Vulgate and LXX
were revered by the Catholic Church,
32
but for the purpose of translation
these two versions, rightly, were not mixed with MT.
In modern times, however, the approach of translators has changed
with the development of the critical approach, a better understanding of
the LXX and the other versions, better insights into the issue of the
original text(s) of the Bible, and now also with the discovery of the
Qumran texts.
33
While, in the past, MT formed the basis for translations
in accord with the approach of Protestant scholarship, modern Bible
translations follow the views developed in the scholarly world. These
views are considered more advanced, probably on the basis of an
intuitive understanding that the reconstruction of an Urtext brings the
readers closer to the original form(s) of Scripture. This modern approach
of eclecticism and of determining the stage to be translated is not based
on any intrinsic religious dogmas, but simply looks to the achievements
of scholarship in the hope scholars can reconstruct the original form of
the Hebrew Bible. What is problematical with this approach is the notion
that scholars can provide such answers. In fact, experience has taught us
that with the increase in analysis of textual witnesses, expressing a view
on the original text becomes more difficult.
34

4. Christian theology could turn to the sound argument that
Christianity is not bound by MT. This point was very strongly made by
M. Mller who argued that the final form of MT was fixed after the
beginning of Christianity and should therefore not be used in a Church

32
In modern times, however, the degree of authenticity of the Vulgate was toned down
in paragraphs 2021 of the mentioned encyclical (see n. 29 above).
33
These developments were summarized as follows by H. G. Grether, Versions,
Modern Era, ABD (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 6.848: When the OT has been translated
from Hebrew (and Aramaic), the text used in the modern period has nearly always been
the Masoretic Text (MT), but with a significant development that resulted, in many cases,
in modifications of the MT as the text base used for translation. There became available
critical printed editions of the text, with alternative manuscript and versional readings in
the margin. These alternative readings were sometimes adopted for translation . . . Biblia
Hebraica . . . Many of these variants have been used by Bible translators since they
appeared.
34
In my own thinking, I shifted to a position of what may be called a sequence of
original texts rather than a single original text. See my study Place of Masoretic Text.
14 CHAPTER EIGHT

environment.
35
According to this view, the Greek Old Testament text
used in the New Testament, close to that of the uncials of the LXX
(although in fact this Greek form was often closer to MT than those
uncials), remains the determining form of Scripture.
36
The first-century
Old Testament basis of the New Testament in Greek should therefore be
used for our current Bible translations.
37
However, this attempt will
prove to be unproductive, because that Greek text is no longer obtainable
and because more than one text was current at the time.
38

Having reviewed the difficulties involved in choosing the textual
basis for modern Bible translations, we note again that the main problem
is the scholarly principle of eclecticism, which was applied only
relatively recently in Bible translations and which has no doctrinal
background in ancient Christianity.
39
It is suggested here that a return be
made to the period before eclecticism was practiced in the creation of
Bible translations. If MT is chosen as the basis for a translation, it should
be followed consistently. Likewise, if the Vulgate or LXX be chosen,
those sources, too, should be followed consistently. The choice of such a
non-eclectic procedure should probably be considered to reflect a
cautious and conservative approach. It is not impossible that at this stage
the editors of HOTTP will agree with this approach for the simple reason
that, rather paradoxically, after all the efforts invested in the text-critical
comparison, usually MT is preferred.
40

We therefore suggest returning to the principles of the first biblical
translations that were based on MT, such as the KJV. In modern times,
such translations can be improved greatly. We can actually look to a
modern model such as the NJPST, which consistently follows MT. It

35
M. Mller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (JSOTSup 206;
Copenhagen International Seminar 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
36
See R. Hanhart, Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta-Forschung fr die Theologie,
Theologische Existenz Heute 140 (1967) 3864; idem, Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta in
neutestamentlicher Zeit, ZTK 81 (1984) 395416.
37
It is unclear whether Mller is suggesting that the practical implications of his own
views be followed, namely that future translations of the Old Testament be based on the
LXX rather than MT. Note Mllers formulations on pp. 7, 1434.
38
Naturally, this claim would be in direct disagreement with the views held by Jerome,
who advocated the use of the Hebrew Bible (to which Mller reacted: Jeromes reversion
to Hebraica Veritas rests on an untenable premise [ibid., p. 143]).
39
The case of the New Testament eclectic translations is different since the editions of
the New Testament are eclectic. When an accepted New Testament text was created by
Erasmus in 15161519, it was eclectic, and accordingly the whole tradition of the New
Testament text and translations has remained eclectic. On the whole, it seems that the
principle of eclecticism has been imported from the world of the New Testament to that of
the Hebrew Bible.
40
On the other hand, this conservative approach of HOTTP is criticized by Barr in his
review of Barthlemy, Critique textuelle in JTS 37 (1986) 44550.
TEXTUAL BASIS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS 15
should not go unnoticed, however, that it is precisely this non-
eclecticism in NJPST (and of its predecessor, NJV) that has drawn much
criticism.
41
Obviously there are many problems in producing a modern
translation that follows MT only, and at times unconventional solutions
would have to be found to enable the inclusion in the text of details that
are unintelligible or even corrupt.
42
It is precisely these aspects that have
induced modern translators to opt for eclecticism.
43
But we have seen
that the dangers of this eclecticism seem to be greater than presenting a
diplomatic translation of MT. The modern public is probably
sophisticated enough to accept occasional notes in the translation such as
meaning of Hebrew uncertain and this inelegant solution is preferable
to the subjective eclecticism imported from the world of scholarship.
Our scholarly experience tells us to believe in complicated textual
developments, textual variety, different stages of an original text, etc. We
even suggest the production of scholarly editions in which all these texts
are juxtaposed.
44
However, the more the ancient sources are unraveled
and analyzed, the more we realize the limitations of our speculations
about the nature of the biblical text.
45
Because of all these uncertainties, it

41
E.g., J. A. Sanders, Text Criticism and the NJV Torah, JAAR 39 (1971) 1937, esp.
1956.
42
Producing a translation that follows only MT is problematic on a practical level. The
implications of this adherence to the traditional Hebrew text in the various Jewish
American Bible versions were discussed in detail by H. P. Scanlin, . . . According to the
Traditional Hebrew Text as a Translation Principle in Tanakh, in I Must Speak to You
Plainly: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Bratcher (ed. R. L. Omanson; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000)
2337. In NJPSTs adherence to MT, some unusual techniques were used to overcome this
problem, such as the use of ellipsis yielding an artificial text, which appears to resemble
MT, but is in fact far removed from it (e.g. Gen 4:8). Furthermore, in his description of the
first JPS translation, H. L. Ginsberg described the policy of the Torah committee as:
. . . where we have been convinced that the text is corrupt, we have made do with the
received text if it was at all possible to squeeze out of it a meaning not too far removed from
what we thought might have been the sense of the original reading; and in some of the more
hopeless cases -- and there are quite a few of them -- we have added a note to the effect that
the Hebrew is obscure. (The Story of the Jewish Publication Societys New Translation of
the Torah, BT 14 [1963] 10613; the quote is from pp. 11011).
The procedure described is in a way unfair to the reader, for it implies that the translators
maneuvered the English language in order to make some sense of a passage that, according
to their scholarly opinion, did not make sense. The NJPST is more cautious in its approach,
for it goes as far as admitting that occasionally the text is corrupt. In such cases, the reading
is described as meaning of Heb. uncertain, explained as follows on p. xxv as where the
translation represents the best that the committee could achieve with an elusive or difficult
text. In some cases the text may be unintelligible because of corruption.
43
Admittedly, scholars can allow themselves the luxury of defending an abstract view,
since they do not have to face an audience, as do the translators of the UBS and NJPST. At
the same time, unconventional solutions can be devised to satisfy those audiences as well.
44
See Tov, Place of the Masoretic Text and chapter 18*, 4.
45
This cautious approach is supported by an observation by Scanlin, Traditional
Hebrew Text (see n. 43 above): Surprisingly, 19th century Old Testament critics, whose
16 CHAPTER EIGHT

seems that the public deserves a diplomatic translation of a single text,
be it MT, the LXX, or the Vulgate.

Eclecticism, the major feature characterizing all modern translations,
has entered the world of confessional translations through the back door,
coming from the academic world. This approach created subjective
translations that are often indefensible; it has also involved the Church in
scholarly discussions regarding the original form of the biblical text,
discussions in which scholars themselves have no answers. In due
course, reasoning along these lines could give rise to translations that are
completely different from MT. It is therefore suggested that a systematic
and consistent translation be made of either the MT, Vulgate, LXX, or
any complete Hebrew scroll from the Judean Desert. If the resulting
translation of MT or the LXX is sometimes awkward, vague, or even
erroneous (with corrective notes provided), C. Rabin
46
has taught us that
the public has a high level of tolerance for unusual translations of
Scripture.

names are virtually synonymous with emendation and reconstruction of the Urtext, were
themselves cautious when dealing with the question of the textual basis of Old Testament
translation.
46
C. Rabin, The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint, Textus 6
(1968) 126, esp. 910.




CHAPTER NINE

THE COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL

The copying of biblical scrolls was very similar or identical to that of
nonbiblical scrolls (see 2 below). Much information on this topic can
now be distilled from the scrolls found in the Judean Desert.
1. The Scrolls
1

The great majority of the biblical scrolls from the Judean Desert were
written on parchment, while only 36 biblical texts were inscribed on
papyrus. The first stage in the preparation of such parchment was the
slaughtering of an animal and the preparation of its hide for the
production of the scroll material. According to research carried out so
far, the scrolls from the Judean Desert were prepared from hides of the
following animals: calf, fine-wooled sheep, medium-wooled sheep, wild
and domestic goats, gazelle, and ibex.
The preparation of the leather is described as follows by Bar-Ilan: The
hide was removed from the carcass and then soaked in a solution of salt
and other agents in order to remove any remaining particles of hair and
fat, then stretched, dried, smoothed with a rock, and treated with a
tanning solution. This improved its appearance, and perhaps made it
easier for the leather to absorb the ink. Next, the hide was cut into the
longest possible rectangular sheet to serve as a scroll.
2
However, even
the leftovers were used for writing: contrary to practice in later centuries,
most of the tefillin found at Qumran were written on irregularly shaped
pieces that clearly were leftovers from the preparation of large skins.
Upon preparation, most skins were inscribed on the (hairy) outside layer
(thus Sof. 1.8 and y. Meg. 1.71d), while 11QT
a
(11Q19)

was inscribed on
the inside of the skin (the flesh side). For parallels in rabbinic literature,

1
Valuable information is found in J. Ashton, The Persistence, Diffusion and
Interchangeability of Scribal Habits in the Ancient Near East before the Codex, unpubl. Ph.D.
diss., University of Sydney, 1999. The present study updates and summarizes my Scribal
Practices.
2
M. Bar-Ilan, Writing Materials, in Encyclopedia DSS, 2.996.
2 CHAPTER NINE
see y. Meg. 1.71d: One writes on the hairy side of the skin (cf. Massekhet
Sefer Torah 1.4).
The length of the composition was calculated approximately before
commencing the writing, so that the required number of sheets could be
ordered from a manufacturer or could be prepared to fit the size of the
composition. Subsequently, the individual sheets were ruled and
inscribed and only afterwards stitched together. The fact that some ruled
sheets were used as uninscribed handle sheets (e.g. the last sheets of
11QT
a
and 11QShirShabb) and that some uninscribed top margins were
ruled (the second sheet of 1QpHab) shows that the ruling was sometimes
executed without relation to the writing procedure of a specific scroll.
The numbering of a few sheets preserved in the Judean Desert probably
indicates that some or most sheets were inscribed separately, and joined
subsequently according to the sequence of the numbers (however, the
great majority of the sheets were not numbered).
The first step in the preparation of scrolls for writing was that of the
ruling (scoring) that facilitated the inscription in straight lines; the
writing was executed in such a way that the letters hung from the lines.
This ruling provided graphical guidance for the writing, horizontal
ruling for the individual lines, as well as vertical ruling for the beginning
and/or end of the columns. The so-called blind or dry-point ruling was
usually performed with a pointed instrument (such instruments have not
been preserved), probably a bone, making a sharp crease in the
parchment. As a result of this procedure, the leather was sometimes split
and even broken off (e.g. 1QapGen ar XXIXXII; 1QIsa
a
XXXVIII, XLVIII;
11QT
a
[11Q19]

XVIII, XXII). It is unclear why some sheets are split more
than others; it is not impossible that different materials, different skin
preparation methods, or differing amounts of force used with these
rulings may account for the differences. In a very few cases, the ruling
was indicated by diluted ink.
Almost all Qumran and Masada texts written on leather in the square
script had ruled horizontal lines in accordance with the practice for most
literary texts written on parchment in Semitic languages and in Greek;
3

this was the continuation of an earlier practice used on cuneiform tablets,
in lapidary inscriptions, and in papyrus and leather documents in
various Semitic languages.
On the other hand, texts written on papyrus were not ruled (for
Qumran, see, e.g. the Greek texts 4QpapLXXLev
b
[4Q120] and 4Qpap

3
For a general introduction, see J. Leroy, Les types de reglure des manuscrits grecs (Paris:
ditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1976); Turner, Greek Manuscripts,
45.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 3
paraExod gr [4Q127]). Probably the horizontal and vertical fibers
provided some form of guidance for the writing. Also, tefillin were not
ruled; see the tefillin from the Judean Desert and the prescriptions in b.
Menah. 32b; b. Meg. 18b.
The ruling was sometimes applied with the aid of guide dots/strokes,
or with a grid-like device (see below on 11QT
a
), while in other instances
no device at all was used. These guide dots (points jalons), or
sometimes strokes, were drawn in order to guide the drawing of dry
lines. The dots or strokes were indicated in the left margin that followed
the last column on a sheet, or in the right margin that preceded the first
column as in 4QDeut
n
, usually about 0.51.0 cm from the edge of the
sheet; in a few instances they were placed further from the edge, e.g.
MasSir V (2.5 cm), 2QpaleoLev (1.5 cm).
The guide dots/strokes were indicated by the persons who
manufactured the scrolls rather than by the scribes themselves, who
often wrote over them in the left margin (e.g. 4QGen-Exod
a
frg. 19 ii;
4QIsa
a
frg. 11 ii). Just as scribes often wrote beyond the left vertical line,
they also wrote very close to these dots, on the dots, and even beyond
them. As a result, the distance between the dots/strokes and the left
edge of the writing differs not only from scroll to scroll, but also within
the scroll, and even within the column. On the other hand, dots indicated
to the right of the column are always spaced evenly within the
manuscript. The guide dots/strokes usually appear level with the tops of
the letters, which is the same level as the ruled lines.
Each sheet was ruled separately, usually without reference to the
preceding and following sheets; compare e.g. 11QtgJob XXXI (last
column of sheet 11) with the next column, XXXII (first column of sheet
12) and 11QT
a
(11Q19) XLVIII (last column of a sheet) with col. XLIX
(first column of a sheet). However in some scrolls a grid-like device
ensuring identical spacing in adjacent columns must have been used for
one or more sheets. Thus the unequal spacing between the ruled lines of
4QpsEzek
c
(4Q385b) frg. 1, iiii, in which the distance between lines 2
and 3 is larger than that between the other lines in all three adjacent
columns, shows that all the columns in the sheet were ruled at the same
time or with the same device. This pertains also to 11QT
a
(11Q19) in
which several sheets must have been ruled with the same grid (three
sheets containing cols. XLVLVI), while subsequent sheets (two sheets
containing cols. LXILXVI) were ruled with a completely different grid,
leaving more space between the lines. In any event, within each column
and sheet, no fixed spaces between the lines were left. See, for example,
4 CHAPTER NINE
the different levels of the lines in some adjacent columns in the same
sheet in 1QIsa
a
, e.g. in col. XIII compared with cols. XII and XIV.
The technique of ruling, prescribed by Talmudic sources for sacred
scrolls, is named fwfr (b. Shabb. 75b; b. Meg. 18b). In Palestinian texts it is
referred to as one rules with a reed (y. Meg. 1.71d; Sof. 1.1).
The most frequently used system of vertical ruling pertains to both
the beginning (right side) and end (left side) of the column. The
horizontal margin lines at the end of a column together with the vertical
lines to the right of the next column indicate the structure of the columns
and the intercolumnar margins. For some examples, see 1QIsa
a
, 1QIsa
b
,
4QpaleoGen-Exod
l
, 4QpaleoExod
m
, 4QNum
b
, 4QQoh
a
, 6QCant,
11QpaleoLev
a
, MasPs
a
, and MasSir. Usually the vertical lines are more or
less perpendicular to the horizontal lines, creating a rectangular shape.
Vertical rules at the left side of the block helped scribes to obtain a
straight left margin, but generally scribes writing texts in square
characters did not adhere properly to it. Since words were not split in the
square script, sometimes other means were devised to obtain a straight
left margin, mainly: (1) Leaving wider spaces between words toward the
end of the lines (proportional spacing), so that the ends of the lines
would be flush with the left marginal line; (2) cramming letters in at the
ends of the lines or writing them in a smaller size in the line itself; (3)
writing of parts of words at the end of the line, to be repeated in full on
the next line.
In a few cases, a double vertical ruling was applied to the right of the
columns, especially before the first column on the sheet (e.g. 4QNum
b
).
Such ruling was performed with two dry lines, spaced a few millimeters
apart, while the writing started after the second vertical line. The
technique may have been used for purposes of neatness, and in the case
of the ruling on the left side it would ensure that the scribe observed the
left margin.
The ruling may have been executed by the scribes, but it is more likely
that it was applied by the manufacturers of the scroll without reference
to the text to be inscribed, as indicated by several discrepancies between
the inscribed text and the ruled lines, such as a larger number of ruled
lines than inscribed text (see 4QDeut
n
).
Most literary texts from the Judean Desert were ruled, and in the
great majority of these texts, the letters were suspended from horizontal
lines in such a way that the text was written flush with these lines. In a
few Qumran texts, the letters are often written slightly below the lines,
e.g. in 11QT
a
(11Q19) cols. XLVXLVIII and 4QXII
g
leaving a space of 0.1
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 5
cm, and 4QHodayot-like Text C (4Q440) at a distance of 0.2 cm. In other
texts, scribes disregarded the guidance of the ruled lines.
The preparation of the material for writing included not just the
ruling, but also the preparation of the surface for writing in columns. The
number of columns per sheet and their sizes differed from scroll to scroll,
sometimes from sheet to sheet, and they depended much on the size of
the sheets and the scroll.
The size of the scroll depended on the contents and the dimensions of
the sheets. At Qumran, the length of most sheets of leather varied
between 21 and 90 cm. The natural limitations of the sizes of animal
hides determined the different lengths of these sheets within each scroll,
which varied more in some scrolls than in others. In two instances
(MurXII, 11QpaleoLev
a
), the preserved sheets are more or less of the
same length.
The inscribed surface was usually organized in the form of a column;
this was always the case in literary compositions. In texts consisting of
more than one column, these columns always follow one another. Only
one document is known, 4QIncantation (4Q444), in which three tiny
fragments of parchment (each containing four lines) were stitched
together vertically, but also in this case the groups of four lines constitute
a single column. In the case of 4QApocr. Psalm and Prayer (4Q448), the
different arrangement of the columns probably derived from the
adhesion of a reinforcement tab that necessitated a large margin at the
beginning of the scroll (col. A).
There is a positive correlation between the length and the width of
columns: the higher the column, the wider the lines, and the longer the
scroll.
The sizes of the columns differ in accordance with the number of
columns per sheet, the measurements of the sheets, and the conventions
developed by the scroll manufacturers. The different parameters of the
columns pertain to their width and length as well as to the top, bottom,
and intercolumnar margins.
In some Qumran scrolls, the height and width of the columns are
fairly consistent, while in most scrolls these parameters varied from
sheet to sheet as well as within each sheet, in accordance with the
measurements of the sheets. Thus the width of some columns in 1QM
and 4QLam differs by as much as 50 percent from other columns in the
same scrolls. Considerable differences between the width of the columns
are visible in 11QT
a
(11Q19) and 8HevXIIgr, while even larger ones are
evident in 1QIsa
a
(cf. col. XLIX [16.3 cm] with LII [8.8 cm]), 1QS (cf. cols.
I [9.7 cm] and II [11.5 cm] with other columns measuring 16, 18 and 19
6 CHAPTER NINE
cm) and 4QLam (col. III is almost twice as wide as cols. I and II). At the
same time, a degree of regularity in column sizes is noticeable in most
scrolls. Usually, the available space in a sheet was evenly divided
between the columns, but the unusual sizes of the sheets did not always
allow for such uniformity. Columns that are unusually wide or narrow
are generally found at the beginning or end of sheets.
The average width of columns in 1QM is 15.0 cm, in 1QH
a
13.0 cm,
and in 1QS 9.515.5 cm. An example of a scroll with very wide columns
is 4QJer
b
with

2124 cm (115130 letter-spaces; reconstructed). An
example of a scroll with narrow columns is 4QMMT
a
(4Q394) frgs. 12 i
iv with a width of 1.72.0 cm (probably reflecting a separate
composition, 4QCal. Doc. D
4
). Furthermore, all the poetical compositions
presenting the text stichographically with hemistichs, such as most
columns of 4QPs
b
written in units measuring c. 3.74.5 cm, present
narrow columns.
The average number of lines per column in Qumran scrolls is probably
20, with a height of approximately 1415 cm (including the top and
bottom margins). Larger scrolls contained columns with between 25 and
as many as 60 lines. Scrolls of the smallest dimensions contained merely
513 lines and their height was similarly small.
Among the scrolls with a large writing block one finds many texts
from Qumran, as well as all the scrolls from Masada, Nahal Hever, Sdeir,
and Murabbaat that can be measured. The latter group of sites contains
scrolls that are usually somewhat later than those found at Qumran. The
terminus ad quem for the Masada texts is more or less identical to that of
Qumran, yet the Qumran finds include earlier texts. The texts from
Nahal Hever, Sdeir, Murabbaat have as their terminus ad quem the
Second Jewish Revolt. The manuscript evidence from these sites thus
may attest to a later practice: MurGen-Num (c. 50 lines); MurXII (39
lines); Sdeir Gen (c. 40 lines); 8HevXIIgr (4245 lines); as well as all the
Masada texts for which such evidence is known: MasSir (25 lines);
MasLev
b
(25 lines); MasShirShabb

(26 lines); MasEzek (42 lines);
MasDeut (42 lines); MasPs
b
(44 or 45 lines). The evidence suggests that
the scribal traditions at these sites were for writing on scrolls of larger
dimensions than the average Qumran scroll. This situation may be
connected with specific manufacturing procedures, but more likely the
data reflect the finding of deueditions of biblical scrolls at these sites, all
of which were of a large format.
The same compositions were often written on scrolls of differing
sizes, although in some cases a degree of regularity is visible.

4
See S. Talmon with J. Ben-Dov, DJD XXI.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 7
All texts whether written on scraps, single sheets, or scrolls were
copied with clearly indicated margins on all sides of the text; tefillin are
the exception, where every available space was used for writing. Even
4Q339 (4QList of False Prophets ar), a very small piece of leather, has
very clearly recognizable margins (top, bottom, left).
The margins in the Qumran scrolls are usually the same size within
each sheet. There are rare exceptions where the margins differ from
column to column within a sheet, and sometimes from sheet to sheet,
due to the leather not being uniform in size. In the Qumran leather and
papyrus texts, the bottom margins are usually larger than those at the
top. However, in some cases the two margins are identical or the top
margin is larger. Large margins, especially large bottom margins,
enabled easy handling of the scroll and were therefore prescribed for
Scripture by rabbinic sources, see b. Menah. 30a (cf. Massekhet Sefer Torah
2.4). In Qumran scrolls, it is usual for the top margins to measure 1.02.0
cm, and the bottom margins 2.03.0 cm. Larger margins, especially in
late texts, usually are a sign of a de luxe format.
All biblical texts were inscribed on one side only, while several
nonbiblical texts were inscribed on both sides (opisthographs).
2. The Scribes
Little is known about the Qumran scribes and they remain as
anonymous as they were two generations ago. Scribes were introduced
to their trade over the course of a training period in which they learned
writing and the various scribal procedures connected with it (such as
writing at a fixed distance below ruled lines and in columns; the
subdivision of a composition into sense units; the treatment of the divine
names; the correction of mistakes, etc.). Furthermore, scribes had to
master various technical skills relating to the material on which they
wrote, the use of writing implements, and the preparation of ink.
The abecedaries found at Qumran,
5
Murabbaat,
6
Masada (ostraca 606
and 608), and at many additional sites dating to the period of the First
and Second Temples
7
probably witness to such a learning process for

5
See Kh. Qumran Ostr. 3 published by E. Eshel in DJD XXXVIII. Two additional
abecedaries, described as deriving from the first century BCE, are displayed in the Israel
Museum as Qumran?
6
Some of the abecedaries from Murabbaat were written on parchment (Mur 10B, 11),
while others were inscribed on sherds (Mur 73, 7880), all published in DJD II.
7
See . Puech, Abcdaire et liste alphabtique de noms hbreux du dbut des IIe S.
A.D., RB 87 (1980) 11826; A. Lemaire, Les coles et la formation de la Bible dans lancien Isral
(OBO 39; Fribourg/Gttingen: Editions universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 7
32; M. Haran, On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel, VTSup 40 (1988)
8 CHAPTER NINE
scribes. A learning process is possibly also reflected in such scribal
exercises as 4QExercitium Calami A (4Q234), B (4Q360), and C (4Q341)
that contain lists of names and other words. Certain Qumran documents,
written with very inelegant and irregular handwriting, were considered
by some scholars to have been written by apprentice scribes. Thus Milik,
Enoch, 141 considered 4QEn
a
ar (4Q201) to be a school-exercise copied
by a young scribe from the masters dictation. Skehan considered 4QPs
x

(4Q98g) to be a practice page written from memory,
8
Milik considered
4QDanSuz? ar (4Q551) to have been written by an apprentice scribe,
9

and Puech suggested that 4QBirth of Noah
a
ar (4Q534) was written by a
child.
10

It is hard to know how many of the texts found in the Judean Desert
were actually produced locally, that is, both their physical preparation
and the copying of the manuscripts. Undoubtedly at least some of the
leather scrolls were produced locally (as can in due course be proved
with DNA analysis comparing the scrolls with hides of local animals,
both ancient and present-day), but at present this cannot be ascertained.
It is also impossible to know whether the production of papyrus was
local (Ein Feschkha or elsewhere in Israel), or whether the papyri were
imported from Egypt.
Qumran. If it could be proven that locus 30 at Qumran served as a
room in which documents were written (a scriptorium in medieval
terminology),
11
the assumption of a Qumran scribal school would
receive welcome support, but the reliability of the evidence pointing to
the existence of such a scriptorium is questionable. Beyond the
archeological relevance of locus 30, most scholars now believe, on the
basis of the content of the scrolls, that some, many, or all of the
documents found at Qumran were copied locally.

8195; J. Renz and W. Rllig, Handbuch der althebrischen Epigraphik 2 (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995) 225; W. Nebe, Alphabets, Encyclopedia DSS,
1.1820.
8
P. W. Skehan, Gleanings from Psalm Texts from Qumran, in Mlanges bibliques et
orientaux en lhonneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor; AOAT 212;
Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 43952 (439).
9
J. T. Milik, Daniel et Susanne Qumrn? in De la Trah au Messie (ed. M. Carrez et al.;
Paris: Descle, 1981) 33759, esp. 355.
10
DJD XXXI, 135.
11
Thus the majority of scholars ever since the description by R. de Vaux, Larchologie et
les manuscrits de la Mer Morte (London: Oxford University Press, 1961) 236; idem,
Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy; London
1973) 2933; see also R. Reich, A Note on the Function of Room 30 (the Scriptorium) at
Khirbet Qumran, JJS 46 (1995) 15760.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 9
Stegemann holds a maximalistic view on this issue, assuming that
most Qumran scrolls were written on site.
12
According to him, one of the
main occupations of the Qumran community was the preparation of
parchment for writing and the mass-production of written texts. These
texts were then sold by the Qumran community to the outside world,
and Stegemann pinpoints the places in the community buildings in
which the scrolls were manufactured, stored, and offered for sale.
13
Golb,
expressing a minimalist view, claimed that none of the Qumran
documents were written locally.
14

Masada. There is no reason to believe that any of the Masada texts
were penned at Masada itself, even though the Zealots and presumably
also the Essenes remained there long enough to have embarked upon
such writing. On the other hand, there is apparently some evidence of
tanning of hides at Masada, which could imply some scribal activity.
15

Probably only the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ostraca were written
at Masada prior to the destruction of the fortress. The Latin ostraca and
some Greek papyri were probably inscribed under the Roman
occupation, and other papyrus and leather texts may have been
imported.
Because of the lack of external information on the scribes who copied
or wrote the documents found in the Judean Desert, our sole source of
information about them is the scribal activity reflected in the documents
themselves. Whether a text under discussion is a copy of an earlier
document or an autograph, the scribal practices reflected in it do provide
information that is relevant to the study of these scribal practices.
However, in the analysis of these practices it is often difficult to
distinguish between the personal input of the scribes and elements
transmitted to them. Thus, the division into sense units and the specific
layout of poetical units embedded in the Qumran texts probably derive
from the first copies of these compositions, although in the transmission
of these elements scribes displayed a certain level of individuality. The
more closely scribes adhered to the scribal practices embedded in the
texts from which they were copying, the less the texts reflected their own

12
Stegemann, Library, 515.
13
This theory was rejected in a detailed analysis by F. Rohrhirsch, Wissenschaftstheorie
und Qumran: die Geltungsbegrundungen von Ausssagen in der Biblischen Archologie am Beispiel
von Chirbet Qumran und En Feschcha (NTOA 32; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag Gttingen,
1996), and idem, Die Geltungsbegrndungen der Industrie-Rollen-Theorie zu Chirbet
Qumran und En Feschcha auf dem methodologischen Prfstand: Relativierung und
Widerlegung, DSD 6 (1999) 26781.
14
N. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search for the Secret of Qumran (New York:
Scribner, 1994).
15
See E. Netzer, Masada III, 6345.
10 CHAPTER NINE
initiatives. In another case, the number of lines per column probably was
determined more by scroll manufacturers than by scribes. Scribes could
choose between scrolls of different sizes, and probably ordered a scroll
size to fit a specific composition. In the case of small-sized scrolls, such as
the copies of the Five Scrolls, it was probably not the individual scribe
but rather tradition that determined that short compositions were to be
written on scrolls of limited dimensions. On the other hand, some
practices and approaches were very much exponents of the individuality
of scribes: handwriting, frequency of errors, correction procedures, the
indication of sense divisions, scribal markings, use of final and non-final
letters, adherence to horizontal and vertical ruling, special layout of
poetical units, as well as the choice of the base text.
Several scrolls were penned by more than one scribe, especially
among texts presumably written by the Qumran scribal school. It is
difficult to know how many long scrolls were written by more than one
scribe. Probably the rule was that each scroll, long or short, was written
by a single scribe, and the involvement of more than one scribe was the
exception rather than the rule. Not only 1QIsa
a
, a long scroll, but also
4QApocr. Psalm and Prayer (4Q448), a short scroll, was written by two
different scribes. Changes of hand in the middle of the text are
recognizable in

several documents, but the background of these changes
is often not readily understandable. In some cases, both scribes wrote a
substantial part of the scroll (1QIsa
a
), while in other cases the second
scribe wrote very little (1QpHab, 1QH
a
scribes AC, 1QS, 11QT
a
).
Whether in these cases the change of hand indicates a collaboration of
some kind between scribes, possibly within the framework of a scribal
school, is difficult to tell. Sometimes (4QJub
a
), the second hand may
reflect a corrective passage or a repair sheet. The situation becomes even
more difficult to understand when the hand of a scribe B or C is
recognized not only in independently written segments, but also in the
correction of the work of a scribe A. Thus, according to Martin, scribe C
of 1QH
a
corrected the work of scribe A, while scribe B corrected that of
both scribes A and C.
16

It is difficult to identify scribal hands solely by an analysis of
handwriting and other scribal features, but if our lack of knowledge is
taken into consideration, one notes that among the Qumran manuscripts
very few individual scribes can be identified as having copied more than
one manuscript. It stands to reason that several of the preserved
manuscripts were written by the same scribe, but we are not able to
easily detect such links between individual texts, partly because of the

16
Martin, Scribal Character, I.63.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 11
fragmentary status of the evidence and partly because of the often formal
character of the handwriting. However, convincing evidence is available
for a few scribes, such as the scribe who wrote 1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb, and the
biblical text 4QSam
c
, and his hand is also visible in several corrections in
another biblical text, 1QIsa
a
(see chapter 5*, 3). The identification of this
scribal hand also serves to show that, at least in this case, biblical and
nonbiblical texts were copied by the same person, and that he treated
both texts in the same way. There also is no indication that tefillin were
copied by different scribes, therefore indicating that the category of
scribes who specialized in sacred writings developed later, or only in
rabbinic circles.
The existence of scribal schools cannot easily be proven. A close
relationship among the various manuscripts of the MT family is often
surmised by scholars. Whether or not this textual closeness also implies a
separate scribal school needs to be established by different types of
criteria. Although it is likely that these manuscripts were indeed created
by a single scribal school, the relevant criteria for setting these
manuscripts apart from other texts still need to be formulated. The
proto-Masoretic manuscripts are characterized by minimal scribal
intervention and a de luxe format. At the same time, the existence of a
Qumran scribal school is often surmised.
17
The criteria used for this
assumption are in the realm of orthography, morphological features, and
special scribal practices. Thus, it can be shown that the employment of
cancellation dots, crossing out with a line, scribal signs, and several other
scribal features is especially frequent in texts that display specific
orthographical and morphological features, and which include almost
exclusively all the Qumran sectarian texts as well as some biblical texts.
The inclusion of phylacteries with a special non-Rabbinic (and therefore
probably Qumran sectarian) content in this group is also remarkable. It
has therefore been suggested that a special scribal school wrote these
texts at Qumran or elsewhere, although this remains speculative.
Nothing is known about the training within this school or scribal
cooperation, although there are a few manuscripts that were written
within this scribal tradition, and supplemented by a second scribe who
also wrote in the same tradition. There are differences in scribal habits
within this group, which may indicate that writing was carried out over
the course of several periods.
Study of the scribal practices reflected in the texts from the Judean
Desert compared with descriptions and prescriptions of such practices in
rabbinic literature is helpful as long as it is recognized that the latter refer

17
See Scribal Practices, 26173 and chapter 27* below.
12 CHAPTER NINE
to the writing of religious texts at a later period, and in circles that only
partially overlapped with those that produced the texts found in the
Judean Desert. Thus, probably only the biblical texts of Masoretic
character, some tefillin and mezuzot, and possibly the paleo-Hebrew texts
from the Judean Desert, which partly overlap with the proto-Masoretic
text group, derived from the same or similar circles as those issuing the
rabbinic prescriptions.
The rabbinic writing instructions pertaining to very specific details
are scattered within the rabbinic literature, while some are combined in
small compilations dealing with different topics, such as b. Menah. 29b
32b; b. Meg. passim; b. Shabb. 103a105a; b. B. Bat. 13b14b. The internally
best-organized group of such instructions is found in y. Meg. 1.71b72a,
and in the post-Talmudic compilation Massekhet Soferim. Many scribal
practices reflected in the Qumran texts are covered by instructions or
descriptions in the rabbinic sources. A comparison between the Qumran
texts and rabbinic literature is hampered by the internal variety within
both the Qumran literature and the rabbinic sources. The comparison can
be applied only to books to which the rabbinic rules could apply, namely
Scripture, tefillin, and mezuzot.
3. The Copying Itself
The ink used for writing the texts inscribed in some scrolls from the
Judean Desert has been analyzed. On the basis of examinations carried
out on several fragments from caves 1 and 4 in 1995, Nir-El and Broshi
concluded that no metal ink was used in writing the Qumran scrolls.
18

These scholars assumed that the copper elements found in the ink used
for the papyrus and parchment fragments derived from copper inkwells
used by scribes, and that the ink itself was carbon based.
That different types of black ink were used is clear from the differing
states of preservation of ink in the manuscripts. While in most cases the
ink is very well preserved, on some scrolls it has corroded and eaten
through the leather, often creating the impression of a photographic
negative. This is the case with 1QapGen ar, 4QpaleoExod
m
, 4QExod-
Lev
f
, 4QLev
d
, and 4QDan
d
. According to Cross, the ink has etched the
leather presumably because of some residual acid in the ink from its
storage in a metal inkwell.
19
On the other hand, according to Nir-El and
Broshi (see n. 18), this deterioration was caused by the agents used to

18
Y. Nir-El and M. Broshi, The Black Ink of the Qumran Scrolls, DSD 3 (1996) 15767.
19
F. M. Cross, DJD XII, 133.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 13
bind the carbon-based ink, such as vegetable gum, animal size, oil or
honey.
In addition, red ink was used in the first lines of Psalm 103 in 2QPs, at
the beginning of new paragraphs in 4QNum
b
, as well as in two
nonbiblical compositions. Nir-El and Broshi suggested that the red ink is
composed of mercury sulfide (cinnabar), imported to Palestine from
Spain through Rome.
20

Ink was stored in inkwells, two of which were found by R. de Vaux in
locus 30 at Qumran, the so-called scriptorium, one made of ceramic and
one of bronze (both were exhibited in the Jordan Archaeological
Museum in Amman in 1997).
21
A third inkwell, made of ceramic and also
found by de Vaux, came from locus 31,
22
a fourth one, found by Steckoll,
came from an unspecified place at Qumran,
23
and a possible fifth one is
mentioned by Goranson, Inkwell. There are dried ink remains in two
of these inkwells.
24

When writing, the scribe would copy from a written text. It is not
impossible that some scribes wrote from dictation
25
or that mass
production (dictating to several scribes at the same time) took place, but
there is no evidence supporting this view. Phonetic interchange of letters
as evidenced in many Qumran texts does not necessarily prove that they
were written by dictation, since any scribe copying from a document
could make phonetic mistakes or change the orthography, whether
consciously or not.
26

Little is known about the pens used for writing the texts from the
Judean Desert, as these have not been preserved. The pens used were
probably of the calamus (kavlamo") type, made from reed. Pfann notes
with regard to the pens used for the texts written in the Cryptic A script:
For the most part a reed pen tip, that had been carefully honed to have
a rectangular cut tip, was used, which allowed the scribe to produce

20
Y. Nir-El and M. Broshi, The Red Ink of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Archaeometry 38 (1996)
97102.
21
See S. Goranson, Qumran: A Hub of Scribal Activity, BAR 20, 5 (1994) 369; idem,
An Inkwell from Qumran, Michmanim 6 (1992) 3740 (Heb.).
22
R. de Vaux, Fouilles au Khirbet Qumran: Rapport prliminaire sur la dernire
campagne, RB 61 (1954) 20633, esp. 212 and pls. 5, 6, and 10b. For further information on
inkwells found in ancient Israel, see Goranson, Inkwell, 38 (see n. 21).
23
S. H. Steckoll, Marginal Notes on the Qumran Excavations, RevQ 7 (1969) 3340,
esp. 35.
24
See further M. Broshi, Inkwells, Encyclopedia DSS, 375.
25
Thus with regard to 1QIsa
a
: M. Burrows, Orthography, Morphology, and Syntax of
the St. Marks Manuscript, JBL 68 (1949) 195211, esp. 196; H. M. Orlinsky, Studies in the
St. Marks Isaiah Manuscript, JBL 69 (1950) 14966, esp. 165.
26
Thus already E. Hammershaimb, reacting to the theories regarding 1QIsa
a
: On the
Method Applied in the Copying of Manuscripts in Qumran, VT 9 (1959) 4158.
14 CHAPTER NINE
strokes with shading (normally vertical or slightly diagonal) depending
upon the direction of the stroke. At other times another more or less
round or square-tipped pen was used, which produced strokes with little
or no shading.
27

It is unknown in what position the writing was executed, but most
probably scribes were seated either on a bench or on the ground, while
holding the sheet on a board on their knees, similar to the position of
Egyptian scribes. In locus 30 at Qumran, archeologists found a table five
meters in length, two small tables, a few small benches fixed to the
wall, and several inkwells (cf. PAM 42.865), which were situated either
in this room or on a second floor that according to some scholars was
situated above this room.
28
However, doubts have been raised with
regard to this assumption. Several scholars have claimed that the table is
too low (70 cm) for writing.
29
Besides, real evidence for the writing at
tables is not available until several centuries after Qumran was
abandoned. The so-called tables probably were not strong enough to
support people either sitting or writing on them.
Scribes writing in the square script wrote a running text with spaces
between the words (except for tefillin), while in some cases they would
join two closely connected words without such spaces. At the same time,
in texts written in the paleo-Hebrew script, words were separated by
little dots or strokes in accordance with the writing tradition in that
script.
Some poetical sections were arranged stichographically in different
systems of a special graphical presentation of the stichs and hemistichs
indicated by spacing, but most texts, including poetry, were written as
prose (running texts). Scribes would also leave occasional spaces for
section breaks based on the content: closed sections in the line for smaller
breaks, open sections usually for larger breaks, and for even larger
breaks a combination of an open section and a completely empty line. As
a result, scribes must have had a good understanding of the composition,
although often these spaces would have been copied from their sources.
Units smaller than sections, known as verses, such as indicated in the
medieval manuscripts, belonged to the oral tradition, and were not
indicated in written Hebrew sources, although they were indicated in the
contemporary copies of the Greek and Aramaic Bible translations.

27
S. J. Pfann, DJD XXXVI, 520.
28
See M. Broshi, Scriptorium, Encyclopedia DSS, 2.831.
29
See B. M. Metzger, The Furniture of the Scriptorium at Qumran, RevQ 1 (1958) 509
15; K. G. Pedley, The Library at Qumran, RevQ 2 (1959) 2141, esp. 35; K. W. Clark, The
Posture of the Ancient Scribe, BA 26 (1963) 6372.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 15
The Qumran scribes had a special approach towards the writing of
divine names, especially the Tetragrammaton. In texts written in square
characters, especially in texts probably produced by the Qumran scribal
school (see n. 17), the use of the Tetragrammaton was usually avoided,
but when it was used, it was copied in the paleo-Hebrew script, also in
some biblical scrolls. Likewise, la, yhla, and twabx were sometimes
written in that script. There are indications that in some scrolls these
divine names were written after the scribe of the manuscript completed
his task, possibly by a scribe belonging to a higher echelon. In several
other texts, four or five dots were used to indicate the Tetragrammaton.
Scribes made all the types of mistakes that may be expected from any
copyist (omissions of small and large elements, duplication, writing of
wrong words and letters, mistakes in matters of sequence). Obviously,
some scribes erred more than others. For example, 1QIsa
a
contains more
errors than most other scrolls. Many of these mistakes were left in the
text, while some were corrected by the original scribe, or a later scribe or
reader. Letters could not be washed off from leather, as they could from
papyrus, so other techniques had to be used: (1) removal of a written
element by way of erasure or blotting out, crossing out, or marking with
cancellation dots or with a box; (2) addition of an element in the
interlinear space or, rarely, in the intercolumnar margin; (3) remodeling
(reshaping) of an existing letter to another one; (4) changing the spacing
between words either by indicating that the last letter of a word
belonged to the next word (beyond the space) or that there should be a
space between two words that had been written as one continuous unit.
All these procedures together may be named scribal intervention,
which is more frequent in some texts and less so in luxury scrolls,
partly because it was less needed in such carefully written scrolls.
However, the exponent of scribal intervention pertains not only to the
correction of mistakes, but also to the insertion of scribal changes in the
text.
As can be seen clearly, many of the corrections indicated in the
manuscripts were inserted by the original scribes in the middle of the
copying process. In most cases, however, it cannot be determined who
inserted the corrections, and the handwriting is not a good indication in
the case of small corrections. Later scribes or readers also must have
corrected the texts, either from memory, or by comparison with the text
from which the scroll was copied or with another scroll. In the case of the
biblical texts, there is no proof that scrolls were corrected on the basis of
an authoritative scroll.
16 CHAPTER NINE
All the letters and words added between the lines correct existing
elements in the text, mainly by way of addition. The technique of adding
explicating glosses or variants was not used in the known scrolls. By the
same token, these scrolls exhibit no parallels to the Masoretic Ketiv/Qere
system known from the Talmud and medieval manuscripts (see chapter
14*).
In the course of the correction procedure, scribes used special signs
for canceling letters or words (especially cancellation dots, crossing out
with a line), and in addition to these signs some manuscripts contain
several scribal markings, mainly in the margins. These signs are
especially frequent in 1QIsa
a
and 1QS, and were probably inserted by
readers rather than scribes. The scrolls also display additional types of
signs. The most frequently used sign, a straight line written mainly in the
margin under the last line of a section (paragraphos), usually indicates the
end of an open section, but occasionally that of a closed section. The
varying shapes of these paragraphoi show that they were inserted by
more than one person. Another such sign resembles an X, and probably
designates a paragraph or issue for special attention. A variety of other
signs are no longer intelligible, among them letters in the paleo-Hebrew
and cryptic-A scripts that were written in the margins of 1QIsa
a
and a
few additional texts. Some of these letters probably carry a sectarian
message, but they may also pertain to the public reading from the scroll.
The Qumran scribes wrote in the square script in Hebrew, and there is
no certainty that the Aramaic texts and the biblical texts written in the
paleo-Hebrew script were also copied by them. These texts may have
been imported to Qumran, just like the Greek Bible texts found there;
nothing points to the Qumran communitys knowledge of Greek apart
from the fact that one or more of the members, who probably knew
Greek, had brought such texts with them.
4. After the Writing
Upon completing the inscribing of the composition, the scribe or
manufacturer would join the sheets to form a scroll. When combining the
sheets, they made an effort to align adjacent sheets so that the lines of
writing would appear at the same level (most of the fifty-four columns in
1QIsa
a
). However, when the columns were positioned at a slightly
different height in adjacent sheets, the lines in these sheets often were not
continuous. This explains the differences in height between the columns
in the adjacent sheets of 1QS; 4QDeut
n
sheets 1 (col. I) and 2 (cols. IIVI;
in this composition the bottoms of the two sheets were cut evenly after
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 17
the two sheets were combined); 11QtgJob VIIBVIII, XVIIXVIII, XXXI
XXXII, XXXVXXXVI (however, the writing in cols. XIXXX is at the
same level); 11QpaleoLev
a
.
According to rabbinic prescriptions, scroll sheets are to be sewn
together with sinews from the same ritually clean cattle or wild animals
from which the scroll itself was prepared. Cf. b. Menah. 31b (only with
sinews, but not with thread) and Sof. 1.1 (see further y. Meg. 1.71d). The
evidence suggests that most of the stitching material in the Qumran
scrolls indeed consists of sinews. However, in his edition of 4QNum
b
,
Jastram concluded that the unraveling of the thread preceding col. XV
(frg. 22b) suggested that it consisted of flax rather than sinews.
30
Further
investigation should be able to determine which threads were made of
animal sinews and which of flax, in the latter case contrary to rabbinic
custom.
The completed document is a scroll (roll). In biblical and rabbinic
Hebrew, a scroll is named hlygm (e.g. Jer 36:28; Ezek 3:1) or rps tlygm (Jer
36:2, 4, 6; Ezek 2:9; Ps 40:8). In the Qumran scrolls, this phrase occurs in
4QWays of Righteousness
b
(4Q421) frg. 8 2, while hlygm alone occurs in
4QprEsth
b
(4Q550a), line 5. To the best of our knowledge, scrolls were
used from very early times onwards, and therefore the original copies of
all books of the Bible must have been written in scrolls. Hence, the
insistence in Jewish tradition on this being the earliest form of the Torah
has much to commend it.
Scrolls of all dimensions could be rolled (llg, e.g. m. Yoma 7.1; m. Sota
7.7; ptuvssw Luke 4:17) easily, and upon completion of the reading they
could be rolled back to the beginning (ajnaptuv ssw Luke 4:20), so that the
first sheet of the scroll or its uninscribed handle sheet remained the
external layer. By the same token, when a reader had finished in the
middle section of a scroll or in any sheet thereafter, it was easier for him
to roll it to the end, so that upon reopening the scroll he could roll it
back.
Parchment scrolls were closed or fastened in three different ways:
a. Many scrolls were fastened with thongs (inserted in reinforcing
tabs) or strings tied around them. In the words of Carswell, The
fastening of each scroll appears to have consisted of two elements, a
reinforcing tab of leather folded over the leading edge of the scroll and a
leather thong slotted through it, one end of which encircled the scroll
and was tied to the exterior.
31
A tool such as KhQ 2393 may have been

30
N. Jastram, DJD XII, 217.
31
J. Carswell, Fastenings on the Qumran Manuscripts, DJD VI, 238 (23).
18 CHAPTER NINE
used for this purpose.
32
The thong was connected to a reinforcing tab
stuck to the scroll itself, in such a way that the thong was tied either
straight or diagonally around the scroll (thus 4QD
a
[4Q266]).
Many detached reinforcing tabs made of coarse leather, differing from
the finer leather of the inscribed scrolls, were found in the Qumran
caves.
33
In cave 8, archeologists discovered sixty-eight such reinforcing
tabs, usually of coarse leather, together with remains of only four
manuscripts. Since each reinforcing tab was once attached to a single
scroll, this cave probably contained a leather workshop or depository,
unless it originally contained an equal number of scrolls and reinforcing
tabs, with most of the scrolls having subsequently disintegrated. In only
two cases have scrolls with attached reinforcement tabs been preserved,
namely, 4QApocr. Psalm and Prayer (4Q448) and 4QD
a
.
34

Scrolls could also be tied with single strings or thongs not connected
to a reinforcing tab, and some of these strings could have been passed
through holes in the leather of the scroll or a cover sheet. According to
Broshi and Yardeni, the tiny fragment 4QList of False Prophets (4Q339)
was folded and held together by a string passed through holes that are
still visible on the fragment.
35

b. Several scrolls were protected by linen wrappings. Remnants of
wrappings that had become detached from the scrolls were found in
caves 1 and 11. A part of a scroll was found in cave 1 with its wrapper
still around it and with the parchment stuck to a broken jar shard.
36

Some of the linen fragments found in the same cave probably derived
from such wrappings. 1QIsa
a
was also once covered with a linen
wrapping.
37

The linen fragments from this cave are both dyed and non-dyed, and
both with and without rectangular patterns. The use of linen wrappings
for scrolls is referred to in m. Kil. 9.3 and m. Kel. 28.4 (wrappers for
scrolls) and in y. Meg. 1.71d (cover), for which Crowfoot mentioned
some parallels from the classical world. The references in the Talmudic
literature pertaining to wrappers with figures portrayed on them may be

32
See DJD VI, 25.
33
See Carswell, Fastenings, DJD VI, 238 and pl. V.
34
See DJD VI, pls. IVaIVb and DJD XVIII, pls. I, XIV. Even if only two thongs were
found attached to the scrolls, there is still much evidence of their use, visible in the imprint
of the thongs or strings on the leather itself, creating a horizontal fold in the middle of most
columns of 1QpHab, 1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb, 1QIsa
a
.
35
M. Broshi and A. Yardeni, DJD XIX, 77.
36
DJD I, pl. I, 810.
37
See the evidence quoted by G. M. Crowfoot, DJD I, 1819.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 19
similar to some of the linen fragments from cave 1 (rectangular patterns
and blue elements).
38

c. In a combination of the two aforementioned systems, some scrolls
were both wrapped with linen and tied with a leather thong. One of the
linen fragments from cave 4 (Israel Museum photograph X94.920) was
attached to such a leather thong and together they must have
surrounded a scroll. This system is not otherwise known from the
literature. If the evidence mentioned under systems 1 and 2 for 1QIsa
a
is
correct, that scroll was also tied with a combination of two systems.
Various practices were employed at the beginnings and ends of scrolls.
The beginnings, or parts thereof, of a number of texts from Qumran
(fifty-one or 5.5% of all the preserved scrolls) and from the other sites in
the Judean Desert (2 scrolls) have been preserved. The ends of a smaller
number of scrolls have been preserved (twenty-nine from Qumran [3.1%
of the total scrolls from that site] and two from Masada). It is probably
no coincidence that for a large percentage of the texts from cave 11 (six of
the twenty-one texts from that cave, disregarding the small unidentified
fragments), one of the two extremities has been preserved, in this case
always the ending. This implies that there were relatively favorable
storage conditions in that cave (see chapter 27*).
At the beginning of the first sheet, the scribe often left an uninscribed
area for handling the scroll (see 4QGen
b
), which was always larger than
the intercolumnar margin (usually 1.01.5 cm), and sometimes as wide
as a whole column. This blank area at the beginning of the scroll was
generally unruled, although in eight instances the surface was ruled up
to the right edge. This system was imitated in the Copper Scroll (3Q15),
in which the first column was preceded by a handling area 6.0 cm in
width. In other cases, a separate uninscribed handle sheet (protective
sheet, page de garde) was often stitched onto the first inscribed sheet; it is
unclear whether in such cases a handle sheet was also attached to the last
inscribed sheet (at least in 1QIsa
a
this was not the case). Remnants of an
attached initial handle sheet have been preserved only for 4QBarkhi
Nafshi
b
(4Q435); in all other instances the evidence is indirect, indicated
by stitches at the right edge of the leather of the first inscribed sheet.
The final column of the text was usually ruled beyond the last
inscribed line of the composition as far as the end of the column, e.g.
1QpHab, 1QIsa
a
, 11QtgJob, 11QPs
a
. Beyond the last inscribed column,
the end of the scroll was indicated by one of the following systems: (1)
the final column was often followed by an uninscribed surface, either
ruled or unruled, that was often as wide as a complete column: 1QpHab;

38
See n. 37.
20 CHAPTER NINE
11QpaleoLev
a
; 11QPs
a
;

11QtgJob; (2) a separate (ruled or unruled)
uninscribed handle sheet (protective sheet) was often stitched onto the
last inscribed sheet; (3) sometimes both systems were combined. In one
case, there is evidence for the existence of wooden bars, rollers (ydwm[) for
handling the scrolls: 11QapocrPs (11Q11, ascribed to 5070 CE).
The main evidence for the indication of titles pertains to nonbiblical
scrolls, while there is one doubtful case of the name written on the verso
of a biblical scroll, 4QGen
h-title
(4Q8c).
When a scroll was torn before or after being inscribed, it was often
stitched. Stitching sewn prior to the writing in a scroll made it necessary
for the scribe to leave open segments in the middle of the text, which
were frequently as extensive as two complete lines. Stitching that was
executed after the writing necessarily rendered some words illegible (e.g.
4QJer
c
XXIII). Accordingly, when the stitching appears in the middle of
an inscribed area it can usually be determined whether it was done
before or after the writing. When the stitching appears in the uninscribed
margins, as in most instances, it cannot be determined when the scroll
was sewn.
Wear and tear to a scroll in antiquity, in both inscribed and
uninscribed areas, was sometimes repaired by sewing a patch onto the
scroll. Most such patches were not inscribed (e.g. the back of 11QT
a
[11Q20]

XXIIIXXIV
39
and the front of col. XXVII), while there is some
evidence for inscribed patches. The only known inscribed patch from
Qumran was once attached to col. VIII of 4QpaleoExod
m
.
40

Inscribed (4QUnclassified Fragments [4Q51a]) and uninscribed
papyrus strips were attached in antiquity to the back of the leather of
4QSam
a
for support. Likewise, Trever, who was the first to study several
scrolls in 1948, writes on 1QS: A fairly large piece of this white leather
(or parchment?) was glued to the back of columns 16 and 17, and another
along the top back edge of column 19. The bottom edge had a similar
treatment in several places where needed (cols. 3, 4, 7, and 12, where
dark brown leather was used; and cols. 47 and 48, where a very light
leather was used).
41

It is unclear how many words in the texts from the Judean Desert
were re-inked in antiquity when the ink had become faint. Some examples
are listed by Martin, but it is difficult to evaluate their validity.
42
The

39
Yadin, Temple Scroll, pl. 12*.
40
See DJD IX, 845 and pl. XI.
41
J. C. Trever, Preliminary Observations on the Jerusalem Scrolls, BASOR 111 (1948)
316 (the quote is from p. 5).
42
Martin, Scribal Character, II.424.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 21
final column of 1QIsa
a
was probably damaged in antiquity, possibly
since it did not have a handle sheet or an uninscribed section for
handling; as a result, the ends of lines 14, 6, 7, 9, 10 were re-inked.
At the other end of the spectrum are found several beautiful scrolls
that can definitely be designated as de luxe editions. Large de luxe
editions, in scrolls from 50 BCE onwards, were prepared mainly for
biblical scrolls, especially of MT. This category possibly coincides with
the exact copies (hjkribwmev na) of Scripture that were fostered by the
temple circles in Liebermans description, based on statements in
rabbinic sources.
43
The assumption of such de luxe editions is based on
the following data: (1) Large margins usually accompany texts with a
large format. (2) The great majority of the scrolls written in de luxe format
reflect the medieval text of MT.
44
Since the de luxe format was used
mainly for the scrolls of the Masoretic family, we assume that many of
them were produced in Jerusalem, the spiritual center of Judaism, the
same center that subsequently formulated the rules for writing that were
transmitted in the Talmud and Massekhet Soferim. (3) As a rule, de luxe
rolls are characterized by a low level of scribal intervention, as may be
expected from scrolls that usually were carefully written, and therefore
had fewer mistakes that needed correction. However, the exponent of
scribal intervention pertains not only to the correction of mistakes, but
also to the insertion of scribal changes in the text.
There is no evidence that large compositions were written on more than
one scroll, except for the books of the Torah. 1QIsa
a
was written by two
scribes and their sheets were subsequently sewn together. Hence, the
custom of subdividing large compositions into different scrolls probably
derives from later times. Thus, while 4QSam
a
contains both 1 and 2
Samuel, later manuscripts divided the book into two segments.
Long texts naturally required longer scrolls, which are recognizable
by their length and the height of the columns. It is unclear what the size
of the maximum scroll was in the period when the Qumran scrolls were
written. At a later period, b. B. Bat. 13b makes reference to large scrolls
containing all the books of the Torah, Prophets, or Writings, and even a
scroll containing all of these together (bound up), but the Qumran
evidence neither supports nor contradicts the existence of such large
scrolls. The evidence from the Judean Desert includes possible proof of a
complete Torah scroll (Mur 1: Genesis-Exodus and possibly Numbers),
as well of some combinations of books of the Torah in six different
scrolls: Genesis-Exodus, Exodus-Leviticus, and Leviticus-Numbers.

43
Lieberman, Hellenism, 2027.
44
For a list, see Scribal Practices, 1259.
22 CHAPTER NINE
It is thus likely that several of the scrolls found at Qumran contained
more than one book of the Torah, and possibly all of the Torah, in which
case they would have measured 2530 meters. According to Sof. 3.4, two
of the books of the Torah were not to be combined if there was no
intention of adding the other three books to them. If this rule had been
followed in the scrolls found at Qumran, every occurrence of two
attached books of the Torah must have been part of a longer Torah scroll.
However, it is unknown whether this rule was followed in the Judean
Desert scrolls.
Little is known about the storage of scrolls. Caves 1 and 3 at Qumran
held large numbers of cylindrical jars, several of which were probably
used for storing scrolls. These jars may have been sealed with pieces of
linen, as suggested by Crowfoot.
45
Although it is not known which
scrolls were stored in these jars, the jars in cave 1 probably contained the
scrolls that remained fairly well intact, namely, 1QIsa
a
, 1QM, 1QS,
1QapGen ar, and 1QH
a
.
Any damage, including natural wear and tear incurred by frequent
handling, required the discontinuation of the use of scrolls for cult
service and their storage in a special area (genizah). There is no evidence
for such genizot at Qumran, but at Masada there is ample evidence for
this custom, since a scroll of Deuteronomy and one of Ezekiel were
buried under the floor of the synagogue, in two separate genizot. Why
these specific scrolls were buried there, and not others, remains
unknown since only fragments of the scrolls have been preserved. But it
stands to reason that these scrolls or segments of them were damaged at
an earlier stage, making them unfit for public reading, and therefore
religious storage became mandatory. These scrolls were probably buried
by the Zealots during their stay at Masada (thus providing us with a
terminus ante quem for the copying and storage, namely 73 CE). Their
burial in separate pits shows that the scrolls were discarded at different
times.
5. Special Procedures for Biblical Texts?
In the wake of the rabbinic instructions for the writing of biblical texts,
especially those included in the late Massekhet Soferim collection, it is
usually claimed that sacred writings were copied carefully with specific
scribal conventions or, in any event, more carefully than nonsacred
literature. However, the corpus of texts from the Judean Desert, when
taken as a whole, shows that the scribes made little distinction when

45
G. M. Crowfoot, DJD I, 19, 24.
COPYING OF A BIBLICAL SCROLL 23
copying sacred and nonsacred manuscripts, and more specifically
biblical and nonbiblical manuscripts. In some circles a limited or even
rigid distinction was made between these two types of manuscripts (see,
for example, the regulations in rabbinic literature for the writing of
sacred texts). However, this distinction is not reflected in the Judean
Desert texts when taken as a whole. At the same time, paleo-Hebrew
biblical manuscripts and many proto-Masoretic texts were singled out by
certain circles for careful copying.
The Pharisees (and probably also the Sadducees) probably developed
special rules for the writing of sacred texts. However, it cannot be said
that these circles distinguished between the writing of sacred and
nonsacred manuscripts, as they probably did not generate any nonsacred
literary writings. When reading the instructions in rabbinic literature
regarding the writing of sacred texts, the impression is created that these
instructions are specific to sacred texts, but from the Qumran texts it is
now evident that in most instances identical procedures were also
applied to nonsacred texts.
The only differences between the copying of biblical and nonbiblical
texts that are visible in the texts from the Judean Desert are:
Biblical texts from the Judean Desert were almost exclusively
written on parchment (thus also the rabbinic prescriptions for the
writing of biblical texts in m. Meg. 2:2; y. Meg. 1.71d).
Biblical texts were inscribed on only one side of the parchment
unlike an undetermined (small) number of nonbiblical opisthographs
from the Judean Desert.
A de luxe format was used especially for biblical scrolls.
A special stichographic layout was devised for the writing of
several poetical sections in many biblical scrolls, as well as in one
nonbiblical scroll.
In this study, the procedures followed during the last few centuries
BCE and the first centuries CE for the copying of biblical scrolls were
scrutinized. These procedures involved the various technical
preparations made for the copying, a discussion of the identity of the
ancient scribes, a detailed discussion of the copying itself, the production
of the scroll after the completion of the writing, and a discussion of
whether or not the production of biblical scrolls differed from that of
nonbiblical scrolls. Continued analysis of these procedures on the basis
of the finds from the Judean Desert will further illuminate aspects of the
transmission of ancient texts.




CHAPTER TEN

THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERTAN
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS
1. Introduction and Statistics
In many ways, the newly discovered texts have revolutionized the study
of the text of Hebrew Scripture, as well as that of Greek Scripture. Many
aspects of the transmission of the biblical text can now be illustrated by
the Judean Desert texts, and occasionally this applies also to the last
stages of the literary growth of the biblical books. In the scholarly jargon
it may sound a little bombastic to speak of revolutionizing the field,
but this term probably describes the finds from the Judean Desert
correctly, especially the ones from Qumran. Some may claim that the
texts found outside Qumran in Wadi Murabbaat, Wadi Sdeir (Nahal
David), Nahal Hever, Nahal Seelim, and Masada are uninteresting, as
they merely confirm the medieval MT, but these texts, too, are in many
ways remarkable.
1
The novel aspects relating to all these texts from the
Judean Desert pertain not only to the new data, but also to a better
understanding of the sources known prior to the Qumran finds.
2


1
Information concerning the provenance of the biblical texts is usually rather stable. At
the same time, 4QPs
q
may derive from Nahal Hever (see P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich and P. W.
Flint, DJD XVI, 145). The provenance of XLev, XJosh, XJudg, and XMinor Prophets as well
as that of all the texts mentioned in n. 7 is equally unclear.
2
For my own summaries, see: A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran
Scrolls, HUCA 53 (1982) 1127; Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert:
Their Contribution to Textual Criticism, JJS 39 (1988) 137; The Significance of the Texts
from the Judean Desert for the History of the Text of the Hebrew BibleA New Synthesis,
in Qumran between the Old and the New Testament (ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson;
Copenhagen International Seminar 6; JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998) 277309; TCHB, 10021. For additional summaries, in chronological order, see:
Skehan, Qumran, Littrature de Qumran; F. Garca Martnez, Lista de MSS procedentes
de Qumrn, Henoch 11 (1989) 149232; E. C. Ulrich, The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran
Cave 4: An Overview and a Progress Report on Their Publication, RevQ 14 (19891990)
20728; A. S. van der Woude, Fnfzehn Jahre Qumranforschung (19741988), TRu 55
(1990) 245307, esp. 274307; 57 (1992) 157; G. J. Brooke, Torah in the Qumran Scrolls, in
Bibel in jdischer und christlicher Tradition. Festschrift fr Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag (ed.
H. Merklein et al.; BBB 88; Bonn, 1993) 97120; E. C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Biblical Text, in DSS After Fifty Years, 1:79100; idem, The Qumran Biblical ScrollsThe
2 CHAPTER TEN
The analysis of these texts would have been different had the texts
from cave 4 been published prior to or simultaneously with those from
cave 1. As it happened, the texts that have been most researched are the
ones that became known first, that is, 1QIsa
a
(1951) and subsequently the
texts published by Sukenik (Jerusalem 1954)
3
and the ones published in
DJD I (1955). The only texts from cave 4 that were known in the early
1950s were two columns of 4QSam
a
(1953), one column of 4QSam
b
(1955), and 4QQoh
a
(1954). It is therefore not surprising that in the minds
of many scholars, consciously or not, the special characteristics of the
large Isaiah scroll

were considered to be the norm for the textual nature
and scribal features of all the Qumran texts. On the influence of 1QIsa
a

on the research of the other scrolls, see chapter 5*, 2.
The present survey of the biblical texts covers all the Judean Desert
sites, including Qumran, Wadi Murabbaat, Wadi Sdeir (Nahal David),
Nahal Hever, Nahal Seelim, and Masada. The survey includes indirect
evidence embedded in nonbiblical Qumran texts.
Now that all the known Hebrew/Aramaic biblical texts from the
Judean Desert have been published, we can easily assess their evidence.
The biblical texts have been published in several large-size volumes (see
the beginning of chapter 16*). These volumes are joined by the editions
of 1QIsa
b
by Sukenik,
4
of 1QIsa
a
by Parry-Qimron, Isaiah, and of
11QpaleoLev
a
by Freedman-Mathews.
5
The DJD edition of the Isaiah
scrolls from cave 1 will follow suit (vol. XXXII). The tefillin and mezuzot
were published in various additional editions.
6


Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism, in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical
Context (ed. T. Lim et al.; Edinburgh: T T Clark, 2000) 6787; idem, The Qumran Scrolls
and the Biblical Text, in Schiffman, Dead Sea Scrolls, 519; . Puech, Qumrn et le texte de
lAncien Testament, in Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (ed. A. Lemaire and M. Saeb;
Leiden/Boston/Cologne: E. J. Brill, 2000) 43764; E. Ulrich, The Bible in the Making: The
Scriptures Found at Qumran, in The Bible at QumranText, Shape, and Interpretation (ed. P.
W. Flint; Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, U. K.: Eerdmans, 2001) 5166.
3
Sukenik, wsr hmgylwt hgnwzwt.
4
Sukenik, wsr hmgylwt hgnwzwt.
5
D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev)
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985). Three texts were published elsewhere: 4QGen
n
(DJD XXV); 4Qpap cryptA Lev
h
(DJD XXXVI); MurGen
(a)
(. Puech, Fragment dun
rouleau de la Gense provenant du Dsert de Juda, RevQ 10 [19791981] 1636). See
further the texts mentioned in n. 7.
6
DJD I, II, III, VI, XXXVIII; Y. Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (Jerusalem: IES and the Shrine
of the Book, 1969). Since the same sections are contained in both tefillin and mezuzot, it is
hard to distinguish between the two in fragmentary texts (note especially 4QPhyl S and U
and 4QMez G), the main criterion for the distinction being their physical features (see J. T.
Milik, DJD VI, 357).
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 3
The final count of the biblical scrolls recorded in DJD XXXIX amounts
to 200201 fragmentary scrolls from Qumran (representing 205206
biblical books) of the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible and 23 fragmentary scrolls
from other sites in the Judean Desert. The slight fluctuation for Qumran
pertains to 4QGen
h1
and 4QGen
h2
, which may or may not reflect one
scroll according to its editor, J. Davila. But also beyond this scroll many
doubts remain in matters of detail. For example, do the various
fragments of Mur 1 (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers) reflect one, two, or three
manuscripts? Further, it is often unclear whether the separation of
several groups of fragments into different manuscripts or their
combination into one manuscript is correct. Are 4QJer
b,d,e
indeed three
manuscripts as was claimed in DJD XV, and are the Deuteronomy and
Exodus segments of 4QDeut
j
indeed part of the same manuscript as was
claimed by J. A. Duncan in DJD XIV? As a result of these and similar
problems, the totals for the manuscripts of the biblical books are
approximate only. After the publication of the list of 200201
fragmentary scrolls in DJD XXXIX, several additional fragmentary texts
have been published or have become known.
7

In the analysis of the biblical texts from the Judean Desert, the
definition of the scope of the biblical corpus is unclear since we are
uncertain regarding the canonical conceptions of the persons who left

7
In chronological order: . Puech, Un nouveau manuscrit de la Gense de la grotte 4:
4Q483 = pap4Gense, RevQ 19 (1999) 25960; idem, Un nouveau fragment du manuscrit
b

de lEcclesiaste (4QQohelet
b
ou 4Q110), RevQ 19 (2000) 60716; idem, Identification de
nouveaux manuscrits bibliques: Deutronome et Proverbes dans les dbris de la grotte 4,
RevQ 20 (2001) 1217; U. Dahmen, Neu identifizierte Fragmente in den Deuteronomium-
Handschriften vom Toten Meer, RevQ 20 (2002) 57181; . Puech, Un autre manuscrit du
Levitique, RevQ 21 (2003) 27580; idem, E. Puech, Notes sur le manuscrit des Juges
4Q50a, RQ 21 (2003) 315319; H. Eshel, A Second Fragment of XJudges, JJS 54 (2003)
13941; E. Eshel and H. Eshel, New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGen
f
, 4QIsa
b
, 4Q226,
8QGen, and XQpapEnoch, DSD 12 (2005) 13457; H. Eshel et al., Fragments of a Leviticus
Scroll (ArugLev) Found in the Judean Desert in 2004, DSD 13 (2006) 5560; . Puech, Les
manuscrits 4QJuges
c
(= 4Q50
A
) et 1QJuges (= 1Q6), in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran,
and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. P. W. Flint et al; VTSup 101;
Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2006) 184202; Y. Baruch and H. Eshel, Another Fragment of
SdeirGenesis, JJS 57 (2006) 1368; E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and M. Broshi, A New Fragment of
XJudges, DSD 14 (2007) 407-410; E. Eshel and H. Eshel, A Preliminary Report on Seven
New Fragments from Qumran, in Meghillot, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V-VI, A
Festschrift for Devorah Dimant (ed. M. Bar-Asher and E. Tov; Heb. with Engl. summ.;
Haifa/Jerusalem: University of Haifa, The Publication Project of the Qumran Scrolls/The
Bialik Institute, 2007) 27178 (4QExod
c
; 4QDeut
f
; 4QJer
c
; 11QPs
c
). T. Elgvin informs me
(February 2007) of additional fragments in the Schyen collection from the following
books: Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Joel, Psalms. All these fragments are
small and their provenance is unknown (probably Qumran cave 4). All these texts are not
included in the statistics below.
4 CHAPTER TEN
these texts behind.
8
Our analysis refers only to the books contained in the
traditional canon of the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible.
Although the notion of what exactly constitutes a fragment of a
biblical text as opposed to a parabiblical text or pesher is sometimes
unclear, our figures are based on the views of the scholars publishing
these texts. We regard texts that have been given names of the biblical
books, such as 1QIsa
a
, as being biblical. Phylacteries and mezuzot,
although containing

segments of Hebrew Scripture,

are excluded from
the statistics, since they are not biblical texts in the usual sense of the
word. By the same token, one could exclude other texts that may have
served liturgical purposes, such as scrolls containing both biblical Psalms
and other Hymnic material, but as these scrolls have been given biblical
names, they are included in our statistics. This pertains, for example, to
the collections of texts included in 4QPs
f
, 11QPs
a
, and 11QPs
b
(see below
as well as chapters 4* and 6*). Qumran compositions that contain
anthologies of biblical texts (especially 4QTest [4Q175]) are excluded
from the statistics, as they do not represent biblical scrolls in the regular
sense of the word, but they are analyzed below as evidence for the
biblical text (see chapter 4*).
Because of this procedure, the overall number of the biblical scrolls
includes different types of biblical texts. Most texts represent regular
biblical scrolls, but some biblical texts may represent liturgical texts or
abbreviated or excerpted compositions. For all these, see below.
9

Within the Qumran corpus of some 930 texts, the 200 biblical texts
constitute 22 percent (not counting the tefillin and mezuzot), while in the
Masada corpus the biblical texts constitute a larger percentage, 46.6 or
43.75 percent depending on a calculation of either fifteen or sixteen
literary texts at Masada. Within the biblical corpus, a special interest in

8
For a recent analysis, see A. Lange, The Status of the Biblical Texts in the Qumran
Corpus and the Canonical Process, in The Bible as Book, 2130.
9
Two aspects remain problematical:
1. Some of the very fragmentary texts which have been named biblical may actually have
been part of compositions which included among other things long stretches of Bible texts,
such as pesharim, other commentaries, or rewritten Bible compositions. For example, the
text that has been published as 4QpapIsa
p
(4Q69) contains only a few words, and could
therefore also have represented a pesher like 4Qpap pIsa
c
. By the same token, the list
includes a minute fragment inscribed in the cryptic A script, described by Pfann (DJD
XXXVI) as a fragment of the book of Leviticus: (pap cryptA Lev
h
?), but more likely it
reflects only a quotation from that book. Likewise, the biblical 2QExod
b
may actually
contain a rewritten Bible text.
2. The manuscripts of 4QReworked Pentateuch
ae
(4Q158, 4Q364367) have been
published as nonbiblical texts in DJD V and XIII, but need to be reclassified as biblical
manuscripts. These texts would add four additional biblical manuscripts to the list. See the
end of chapter 10* and my study The Many Forms. See also 4Bc e below.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 5
the Torah is visible at all the sites in the Judean Desert: 87 texts or 43.5
percent of the Qumran biblical corpus represent the books of the Torah.
At sites other than Qumran this percentage is even greater: fifteen of the
twenty-five biblical texts or 62.5 percent represent the Torah.
The number of copies of individual books shows the differing levels
of interest in them. The exceptionally large number of copies of
Deuteronomy (30), Isaiah (21), and Psalms (36) probably reflects the
interest of the Qumran covenanters in these books.
The beginnings, or parts thereof, of a number of texts from Qumran
(fifty-one or 5.5 percent of all the preserved scrolls) and the other sites in
the Judean Desert (two scrolls) have been preserved, while the ends of a
smaller number of scrolls have been preserved (twenty-nine from
Qumran [3.1 percent of the total scrolls from that site]) and two from
Masada.
10
The extremities of these scrolls are recognizable because of
conventions practiced by scribes and scroll manufacturers (uninscribed
areas, handle sheets), while often segments of the first or last columns
have been preserved. In any event, no differences are recognizable
between the biblical and nonbiblical scrolls with regard to the practices
used at the beginnings and ends of scrolls. Some have large uninscribed
areas at the beginning or end, while others have handle sheets at one of
the extremities, while rarely these two conventions were used at the
same time.
2. External Data on the Biblical Scrolls
1QIsa
a
is the only scroll that has been preserved in its entirety, 54
columns in 17 sheets. Substantial remains have been preserved of 1QIsa
b
,
4QpaleoExod
m
, 4QNum
b
, 4QSam
a
, 4QIsa
c
, 4QJer
a
, 11QpaleoLev
a
,
11QPs
a
, MurXII, and 11QtgJob, while the preserved remains of all other
scrolls are fragmentary, even very fragmentary. Sometimes a tiny
inscribed piece is the only evidence for a biblical scroll identified by its
content, and/or script.
If two or more biblical books were contained in a single scroll, these
books were part of a larger unit. However, evidence for scrolls
containing such a large unit is scanty, while there is evidence for single
books within those larger units that were demonstrably not part of such
larger units. Of course, scrolls starting with Genesis (4QGen
b,g,k
), Joshua
(XJosh), Kings (5QKgs), Isaiah (1QIsa
a
and MurIsa), or the Minor
Prophets (4QXII
d
) preceded by a handle sheet or a large uninscribed area

10
See Scribal Practices, 10818. See further chapter 9* 4 regarding the special status of
the texts from cave 11.
6 CHAPTER TEN
should cause no surprise. Nor should it be surprising that MasDeut,
MasPs
b
, and 11QPs
a
ended with a final handle sheet or an uninscribed
surface. At the same time, there is some evidence for scrolls that contain
a single biblical book and are not part of a larger unit.
Thus the inclusion in one scroll of more than one biblical book is
evidenced for 4, 5, or 6 Torah scrolls: 4QGen-Exod
a
(36 lines; evidence
unclear), 4QpaleoGen-Exod
l
(5560 lines), 4QExod
b
(= 4Q[Gen-]Exod
b
; c.
50 lines), and possibly also 4QExod-Lev
f
(c. 60 lines), 4QLev-Num
a
(43
lines), and Mur 1 (c. 60 lines), the latter possibly containing Genesis,
Exodus, and Numbers (see DJD II, 758). In all these cases, the spaces
between the two books have been preserved together with some letters
or words of the adjacent book, but in no instance has the full evidence
been preserved. The large column size of several of these scrolls confirms
the assumption that they indeed contained two or more books, since a
large number of lines per column usually implies that the scroll was
long. On the basis of the large parameters of these scrolls, it may be
presumed that other Torah scrolls likewise contained two or more books:
4QGen
e
(c. 50 lines), 4QExod
e
(c. 43), MasDeut (42), SdeirGen (c. 40),
4QGen
b
(40). On the length of the Torah scrolls, see chapter 9* 4.
The books of the Minor Prophets were included in one scroll in
MurXII, 4QXII
b
and 4QXII
g
: a space of three lines was left between
various books in MurXII, as evidenced by the transitions Jonah/Micah,
Micah/Nahum, and Zephaniah/Haggai (see DJD III, 182, 192, 197, 200,
202, 205). This practice follows the tradition, also known from b. B. Bat.
13b, for combining these books as one unit, while in 4QXII
b
frg. 3 5 only
one line is left between Zephaniah and Haggai and in 4QXII
g
frgs. 7075
one-and-a-half lines were left between Amos and Obadiah.
While most of the Qumran copies of the Five Scrolls were probably
contained in separate scrolls (note their small dimensions), there may be
indirect evidence for one scroll containing all five Megillot or at least one
additional book beyond Lamentations. The first preserved column of
4QLam starts at the top with Lam 1:1b twnydmb yt_ r_ _ ywgb ytbr hnml?ak htyh
sml htyh, and since the column length of the scroll is known (1011 lines),
the preceding column would have contained at least the first line of the
book, a few empty lines, and the end of the book preceding
Lamentations.
At the same time, there is some evidence for scrolls that contain a
single biblical book and are not part of a larger unit: 11QpaleoLev
a
,
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 7
4QLev
c
,

4QDeut
h
, 6QDeut? (6Q20), 1QIsa
a
, and most extant Qumran
copies of the Five Scrolls.
11

Some general conclusions on the scope of the biblical scrolls written in
leather scrolls can be formulated, although many details remain
uncertain, especially since some biblical scrolls probably contained only
selections.
Torah: The average scroll of a single book of the Torah probably
contained 2030 lines per column. Scrolls of a smaller size would not
have contained the complete books, and the longer ones (4060 lines)
could have contained two or more books. Thus in Genesis five long
copies (4QGen
b,e
, SdeirGen, MurGen-Num, 4QExod
b
[= 4Q[Gen-]
Exod
b
]) contain 4050 lines, while the smaller ones, 4QGen
d,g,f
, contain
11, 14, and 17 lines. Medium-length copies contain 24 and 25 lines.
4QGen
d
,

with merely 11 lines and 4QExod
e
with 8 lines definitely did not
contain the complete books. Likewise, 4QDeut
j,n
probably contained
liturgical excerpts.
Major Prophets: Average copies of a single scroll contained 3040
lines in the cases of Isaiah and Ezekiel and 2030 lines in the case of
Jeremiah. 4QEzek
b
with 11 lines is an exception, and according to J. E.
Sanderson, DJD XV, 216 it is unlikely that this scroll contained the entire
text of Ezekiel as it would have been an improbable 32 meters long with
280 columns. A single scroll of Isaiah is also mentioned in Luke 4:16-21.
12

Psalms: The smaller scrolls were of a limited size, containing only
Psalm 119 (1QPs
a
, 4QPs
g
, 4QPs
h
, 5QPs [for the latter two and 1QPs
a
,

no
measurements can be made]), Psalm 104 (4QPs
l
), or a small anthology of
psalms, while the longer ones contained all or most biblical Psalms. At
the same time, we lack specific data on the contents of many of the
Psalms scrolls that are known in a variety of sizes, from 8 to 60+ lines.
Five Scrolls: All known copies of the Five Scrolls (with the exception
of 4QQoh
a
) are small. With the exception of 4QLam, which probably was
preceded by another book, probably all preserved specimens of the Five
Scrolls contained a single book only.
Daniel: 4QDan
a,b,c
contained 1622 lines, while 4QDan
e
was smaller
(9 lines). According to E. Ulrich, DJD XVI, 287, the latter scroll probably
contained only a segment of the book, as 120 columns would have been
needed to contain the complete book.
3. Scribal Features

11
For details, see Scribal Practices, 79.
12
Prior to reading, Jesus unrolled this scroll and then rerolled it (ptuv ssw and
ajnaptuv ssw in vv 17 and 20) once he had finished.
8 CHAPTER TEN
The data known regarding the Qumran texts show that sacred and
nonsacred literary texts share all the main scribal features relating to
writing, horizontal and vertical ruling, stitching of sheets, size and shape
of columns, correction systems, scribal signs, length of scrolls, number of
columns per sheet, height of columns, margins, paragraphing, repair-
stitching, patching, initial and final handle sheets, and use of guide
dots/strokes. Although further research is required, the leather used for
biblical texts was seemingly not of a superior quality to that used for
nonbiblical compositions.
As with the nonbiblical scrolls, the Hebrew biblical scrolls from
Qumran show no evidence of verse division as in the later MT.
All the sub-systems used for paragraphing are shared by biblical and
nonbiblical manuscripts, relating to small and large spaces within the
line and at the end of the line, completely empty lines, and indentations.
At the same time, the paragraphos signs are rarely used in biblical texts.
Poor tanning, scar tissue, and stitching forced scribes to leave certain
areas uninscribed in both types of scrolls. Inscribed (4QUnclassified
frags. [4Q51a]) and uninscribed papyrus strips were attached in
antiquity to the back of the leather of 4QSam
a
for support. It is unclear
how many words in the Judean Desert texts were re-inked in antiquity
when the ink had become faint.
Use of scribal marks in biblical scrolls was more limited than in
nonbiblical scrolls, but the data do not suffice for drawing a distinction
between the two types of texts. For a detailed analysis, see Scribal
Practices, 178218.
Only a few distinctions between biblical and nonbiblical literary
manuscripts are visible. For a detailed analysis, see chapter 9*, 5 and
Scribal Practices, 252.
This summary shows that the rules for the writing of sacred texts
recorded in Massekhet Soferim and in earlier rabbinic sources are
somewhat misleading when detached from the writing of nonsacred
texts, since most details recorded there pertain to writing practices
employed in an identical way in nonsacred texts during the Second
Temple period. For example, Sof. 1.15 states that texts that deviate from
the norm regarding the indication of open and closed sections cannot be
used as sacred writings. However, this practice, which is basically a
paragraphing system, was followed in most compositions written in the
Qumran period, biblical and nonbiblical. Thus, the practice itself was not
sacred, but rather the tradition of indicating a specific type of
paragraphing in a given instance. Likewise, the practice of leaving larger
bottom margins than top margins in manuscripts (Sof. 2.5; y. Meg. 1.71d)
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 9
was the norm in most texts, and not only in Torah scrolls. In other cases,
criteria were instituted for regulating precision when copying scrolls, but
these criteria were also in vogue for any well-written scroll from the
Judean Desert; in the case of sacred scrolls, these criteria were
formulated in such a way that the scrolls could not be used if they fell
below a certain standard of precision: a scroll of Scripture in which a
complete line was erased (Sof. 3.9), scrolls containing more than a certain
number of mistakes (3.10), scrolls with mixed medial and final letters
(2.20), or scrolls displaying letters written beyond the vertical left-hand
margin (2.3) could not be used for sacred purposes.
Large de luxe editions, especially of MT, and especially in scrolls from
later periods, seem to be specific to biblical scrolls, see Scribal Practices,
1259. De luxe rolls are characterized by wide top and bottom margins, a
large writing block, adherence to the medieval text of MT, and a limited
amount of scribal intervention. It is not impossible that these scrolls are
the corrected copies mentioned in b. Pes. 112a: when you teach your
son, teach him from a corrected copy (hgwm rps).
4. Textual Character
A. Sites Other Than Qumran
All the twenty-three texts found outside Qumran reflect the medieval
consonantal text of MT, more so than the proto-Masoretic Qumran texts.
This grouping comprises the following sites and texts: Masada (Genesis,
Leviticus [2], Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and Psalms [2]),
13
Wadi Sdeir
(Genesis), Nahal Seelim (Numbers), Nahal Hever (Numbers [2],
Deuteronomy, Psalms) and Murabbaat (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Minor Prophets).
14
See also the texts from three
unknown sites: XJosh, XJudg, and XBiblical Text?.
15
The only differences
with the medieval text pertain to orthography, a few minute variants,
paragraphing, and the layout of individual Psalms. All these variations

13
For the publication and an analysis, see Talmon, Masada VI. For subsequent analyses,
see E. Tov, A Qumran Origin for the Masada Nonbiblical Texts? DSD 7 (2000) 5773; E.
Ulrich, Two Perspectives on Two Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Masada, in Paul,
Emanuel, 54364.
14
For the first three sites, see the texts published by P. W. Flint, M. Morgenstern, and C.
Murphy in DJD XXXVIII. For the last site, see the texts published by J. T. Milik in DJD II.
15
The texts were published in DJD XXVIII and XXXVIII.
10 CHAPTER TEN
resemble the internal differences between the medieval manuscripts of
MT themselves.
16

B. Qumran
The main sources for our knowledge of the biblical text at Qumran are
those containing a running biblical text, but our information is
supplemented by other sources of limited value, viz., quotations in the
nonbiblical compositions as well as excerpted and abbreviated biblical
manuscripts.
17

a. The Biblical Text Reflected in the Nonbiblical Compositions
A full analysis of the biblical text at Qumran ought to include the
quotations from the Bible in the nonbiblical documents, which add to
our knowledge of the variety of biblical texts in the period under
investigation. The perusal of these nonbiblical texts is complicated, since
it is often difficult to extract from them reliable information about the
biblical text quoted. These difficulties are caused by the fact that biblical
quotations are found in a variety of compositions, each of which requires
a different type of analysis. Thus the evaluation of the textual deviations
reflected in the biblical quotations in these compositions differs not only
from one category of compositions to the other, but also from one
composition to the next:
18

a. Quotations and Allusions in Nonbiblical Compositions. Several nonbiblical
compositions, both sectarian and non-sectarian, freely quote from and
allude to passages in the Bible. Indeed, the sectarian Hodayot and Rules,
as well as non-Qumranic compositions such as 4QNon-Canonical Psalms
AB (4Q38081) abound with biblical quotations. Most of these
quotations are free, involving changes in the biblical text, which
accordingly cannot be utilized easily within the context of a text-critical

16
See, further, chapter 12*. For detailed statistics and an analysis, see I. Young, The
Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for
Conventional Qumran Chronology? DSD 9 (2002) 36490. Barthlemy, Critique textuelle 3,
cxiii considers MurXII a characteristic sample of the textual standardization which took
place between the two revolts and which is therefore more properly proto-Masoretic, so to
speak, than the earlier Qumran texts of the Minor Prophets and of other books.
17
Greenstein suggested that when encountering variations in the biblical and
nonbiblical texts, ones first inclination should be to assume the scribes faulty memory: E.
L. Greenstein, Misquotation of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Frank Talmage
Memorial Volume (ed. B. Walfish; Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993) 7183. A similar
theory had been advanced previously for 1QIsa
a
by H. M. Orlinsky, Studies in the St.
Marks Isaiah Scroll, JBL 69 (1950) 14966 (165). In our view, this approach would be valid
in only a few instances.
18
Excerpted and abbreviated biblical manuscripts are analyzed below as a subgroup of
biblical manuscripts.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 11
discussion. The textual background of some compositions has been
studied, but few solid conclusions have been reached.
19
We agree with
Langes conclusion that no specific text group (in his words, text type)
is preferred in the biblical quotations in the nonbiblical Qumran
compositions.
20

b. Pesharim and Other Commentaries. Pesharim are composed of quotations
from the biblical text (lemmas) and their exposition (pesher). These
lemmas in the eighteen running pesharim on biblical books or parts of
them from caves 1 and 4 contain long stretches of biblical text, which,
when combined, would amount to running biblical manuscripts, were it
not that they often have been preserved only fragmentarily. However, in
1QpHab, 4QpNah, 4QpPs, and some pesharim on Isaiah, such running
texts may be reconstructed. In addition, the exposition in the pesher itself
sometimes also reflects a few additional readings differing from the
biblical text on which the pesher comments.
Different views have been voiced regarding the text-critical value of
the biblical text contained in and reflected by these pesharim. A positive
position was taken by the editors of textual editions that incorporated
readings from these pesharim (mainly from the lemmas) in their textual
apparatuses (BHS for 1QpHab, HUBP for the pesharim on Isaiah, and
Biblia Qumranica for the Minor Prophets; see chapter 16*). Some scholars
cautioned that many so-called deviations from MT in the pesharim and
commentaries
21
were due to contextual exegesis. However, although

19
M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, Bible Quotations in the Sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, VT 3
(1953) 7982; J. Carmignac, Les citations de lAncien Testament dans La Guerre des Fils
de la Lumire contre Les Fils des Tnbres, RB 63 (1956) 23461, 37591; M. Mansoor,
The Thanksgiving Hymns and the Masoretic Text (II), RevQ 3 (1961) 38794; J. de Waard,
A Comparative Study of the Old Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament
(STDJ 4; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965); G. Vermes, Biblical Proof Texts in Qumran Literature,
JSS 34 (1989) 493508; J. G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 18, 19
20 (BZAW 228; Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 1995); J. Elwolde, Distinguishing the
Linguistic and the Exegetical: The Biblical Book of Numbers in the Damascus Document,
DSD 7 (2000) 125; M. Riska, The Temple Scroll and the Biblical TraditionsA Study of Columns
113:9 (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 81; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical
Society, 2001); S. Metso, Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule, in The Bible as Book,
8192; E. Tigchelaar, The Cave 4 Damascus Document Manuscripts and the Text of the
Bible, ibid., 93111; J. Hgenhaven, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in 4QApocryphal
Lamentations (4Q179), ibid., 11320.
20
A. Lange, The Status of the Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical
Process, in The Bible as Book, 2130 (27).
21
E.g., G. Molin, Der Habakkukkomentar von En Fesha in der alttestamentlichen
Wissenschaft, TZ 8 (1952) 34057; G. J. Brooke, The Biblical Texts in the Qumran
Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants? in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis:
Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (ed. C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring; Atlanta:
12 CHAPTER TEN
such exegesis is found in the pesharim, including a few cases of sectarian
exegesis,
22
many, if not most, deviations in the lemmas probably reflect
variants found in the biblical manuscripts used by the commentator.
23

The Qumran commentaries probably reflect fewer variants than the
pesharim.
24
At the same time, it remains difficult to determine the level of
manuscript variation. A maximalistic approach underlies the lists of
presumed variant readings for 1QpHab by Brownlee (see n. 21) and for
all the pesharim by Lim.
25
Thus, according to Lim,
26
17 percent of all the
words of the MT of Nahum differ from the corresponding preserved
segments of 4QpNah. The number of 4QpNah readings that, according
to Lim, differ from MT is substantial, but they include morphological
variations and a large number of contextual changes, both of which
cannot be evaluated easily. If, according to a minimalist approach, these
elements were inserted by the authors of the pesharim, the underlying
biblical text was probably not very different from MT. On the other
hand, if this Vorlage already included the morphological variations and
contextual changes, it resembled 1QIsa
a
and similar texts. Believing this
to be the case, several scholars
27
characterized the underlying texts of the
pesharim as vulgar texts.
28


Scholars Press, 1987) 85100 with references to earlier studies; idem, Some Remarks on
4Q252 and the Text of Genesis, Textus 19 (1998) 125.
22
The most clear-cut examples are 1QpHab VIII 3 (Hab 2:5) wh (MT: yyh); 1QpHab XI 3
(Hab 2:15) hyd[wm (MT: hyrw[m). For an analysis, see W. H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in
the Ancient Commentary from Qumran (JBL Monograph Series XI; Philadelphia, 1959) 1138.
23
L. Novakovic apud J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran HistoryChaos or
Consensus? (Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, U. K.: Eerdmans, 2002) 12958 lists all the
variants that according to her are reflected in the pesharim, other commentaries, and
related documents. See also I. Goldberg, Variant Readings in the Pesher Habakkuk,
Textus 17 (1994) dk-f (Heb.); G. J. Brooke, Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran
Texts, in Writing & Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. C. C.
Broyles and C. A. Evans; VTSup 70, 12; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997) 60932; idem, The
Qumran Pesharim and the Text of Isaiah in the Cave 4 Manuscripts, in Biblical Hebrew,
Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (ed. A. Rapoport-Albert and G.
Greenberg; JSOTSup 333; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 30420.
24
In the words of Brooke, The Biblical Texts, 87 (see n. 21) ... that in more cases than
are usually recognized the variants in the biblical texts in the Qumran commentaries have
been deliberately caused by the desire of the Qumran commentator to make this text
conform with his exegetical understanding.
25
T. H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Texts (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997), chapter IV; idem, Biblical Quotations in the Pesharim and the Text of
the BibleMethodological Considerations, The Bible as Book, 719.
26
Lim, Holy Scripture, 90.
27
J. van der Ploeg, Le rouleau dHabacuc de la grotte de Ain Fesha, BO 8 (1951) 211,
esp. 4; K. Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (BHT 15, Tbingen: J. C.
B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953) 48; P. Kahle in a review of Elliger in TLZ 79 (1954) 4789; S.
Segert, Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer VI, ArOr 23 (1955) 575619
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 13
The pesharim from caves 1 and 4 at Qumran often differ from the
Masoretic tradition regarding the scope of the units in the biblical text
quoted in the lemmas. Thus, while the lemmas quoting the biblical text
in 1QpHab sometimes conform to what is now a verse in the Masoretic
tradition of Habakkuk, more frequently they comprise half-verses or
even smaller segments. For details, see Scribal Practices, Appendix 7.
g. Rewritten Bible Compositions. A group of rewritten Bible compositions,
including compositions whose names contain the elements Ps(eudo)
and Apocr, provides substantial information relevant to our
knowledge of the biblical text.
29
These rewritten Bible compositions
reformulate the content of Hebrew Scripture, adding and omitting minor
and major details, as well as changing many a word. Each composition
was a unicum, inserting a different number of changes in the biblical
text. Some compositions were very close to the Scripture text, such as the
Temple Scroll, which contains long stretches that run parallel to the
biblical text, especially in cols. LILXVI
30
. At the same time, because of
the difficulty in distinguishing between the biblical text and the more
substantial added layer of exegesis and rewriting in these compositions,
it would be hard to incorporate their deviations from MT in a text-critical
analysis.
Although the amount of information on the biblical text reflected in
the nonbiblical compositions from Qumran is limited, these sources need
to be further explored for textcritical purposes. Among other things, an
attempt should be made to examine possible links between the biblical
quotations in the nonbiblical Qumran texts, especially the sectarian ones,
and the biblical texts found at Qumran. Characteristic readings of the
biblical texts need to be isolated in the quotations, and this is possible
only when the differences between the manuscripts themselves are

(608). These scholars probably go too far when describing the biblical quotations in the
pesharim as reflecting a distinct textual recension deviating from the other textual sources.
A similar conclusion was reached by M. Collin, mainly on the basis of an analysis of
1QpMic, which was characterized by him as reflecting a third recension of the biblical
book, alongside the MT and LXX: Recherches sur lhistoire textuelle du prophte Miche,
VT 21 (1971) 28197. This characterization was rejected by L. A. Sinclair, Hebrew Texts of
the Qumran Micah Pesher and Textual Traditions of the Minor Prophets, RevQ 11 (1983)
25363.
28
For a discussion of what many scholars name vulgar texts, see TCHB, 1937.
29
See J. C. VanderKam, The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural
Works, The Bible as Book, 4156.
30
That composition does not show a close textual relation to any of the known textual
witnesses of the Bible, and its text should probably be characterized as reflecting an
independent textual tradition. See the present author in The Temple Scroll and Old
Testament Textual Criticism, ErIsr 16 (Heb. with Eng. summ.; Jerusalem, 1982) 10011.
14 CHAPTER TEN
sufficiently distinctive. For example, in Isaiah the differences between
1QIsa
a
(sometimes agreeing with 4QIsa
c
) on the one hand and on the
other hand the proto-Masoretic 1QIsa
b
and most of the Isaiah
manuscripts from cave 4 are quite distinct, as are the differences in
Jeremiah between (1) 4QJer
b,d
and the LXX on the one hand, (2) and the
Masoretic 4QJer
a,c
, and (3) the idiosyncratic 2QJer. At the same time, it
remains difficult to determine close affinities between brief quotations
from these two books in nonbiblical compositions and specific Qumran
biblical manuscripts. A few special links between such quotations and
Qumran manuscripts have been noticed, but research of this type is still
insufficiently developed.
31

b. Biblical Manuscripts
a. Excerpted and Abbreviated Texts. Due to the fragmentary nature of
excerpted biblical texts,
32
their essence is not always clear, nor is the
background of the excerpting. Most excerpted texts were probably made
for liturgical purposes: all the tefillin, several manuscripts of Exodus and
Deuteronomy, and a long list of Psalm texts from caves 4 and 11 as well
as texts from other books and 4QTestimonia (4Q175). Other manuscripts
of Exodus, Canticles, Deuteronomy, etc. contain an abbreviated text (see
chapter 4*). If the characterization of these scrolls as excerpted and
abbreviated texts is correct, their major omissions and transpositions
should be disregarded in the textcritical analysis, but other deviations
from MT should be taken into consideration, for example in the case of
the tefillin.
33
The textual character of some excerpted texts is clearly
recognizable. Thus, the harmonizing readings of 4QDeut
n
are
conspicuous.
34
Likewise, while the first biblical quotation in 4QTest is
close to SP,
35
the third one, from Deut 33:8-11, is very close to 4QDeut
h
,

31
See the discussion of the quotation from Deut 33:8-11 in 4QTest below. See further the
examples listed by Tov, Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts, 34. G. Vermes, Biblical Proof
Texts mentions a few cases of difference between MT and the text quoted in Qumran
compositions, e.g. 1QS V 17 kl agreeing with MT Isa 2:22 and differing from hmkl in
1QIsa
a
.
32
See chapter 4*.
33
See D. Nakman, The Contents and Order of the Biblical Sections in the Tefillin from
Qumran and Rabbinic Halakhah: Similarity, Difference, and Some Historical Conclusions,
Cathedra 112 (2004) 1944 (Heb.); D. Rothstein, From Bible to Murabbaat: Studies in the
Literary, Scribal and Textual Features of Phylacteries and Mezuzot in Ancient Israel and Early
Judaism, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1992.
34
See chapter 4*, n. 26.
35
See chapter 4*, n. 14.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 15
and may have been based on that scroll or a similar one.
36
These two
quotations show that the author of 4QTest quoted from at least two
biblical scrolls of a different character, one of the pre-Samaritan texts and
4QDeut
h
, a textually independent text. This unintentional mixture must
have resulted from the authors use of these particular scrolls, and
probably neither he nor the other authors took notice of the different
textual character of the scrolls consulted.
Another feature of the excerpted and abbreviated texts is that none of
these texts, with the exception of the non-Qumranic tefillin and mezuzot,
is close to MT (see chapter 4*). This feature indicates a certain milieu for
these anthologies, whose purpose differed from that of the writing of
regular Scripture texts.
b. Regular Biblical Texts
(1) Background. The great majority of the 200 Hebrew biblical texts
comes from cave 4, while smaller quantities were found in caves 1, 2, 3,
5, 6, 8, and 11.
37
How uncertain we are regarding the number of texts
originally deposited in the caves is shown by the 68 reinforcing leather
tabs found in cave 8.
38
Each reinforcing tab was probably attached to a
single scroll, and although this cave probably contained a leather
workshop or depository, it is not impossible that many scrolls decayed in
this cave and that the reinforcing tabs evidence the existence at one time
of many scrolls, much more than the remains of four manuscripts would
indicate.
The main depository of texts is cave 4, which contains copies of all the
books of the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of Esther.
39
It is significant
that virtually all the so-called canonical books were represented in this
cave, which probably implies that an effort was made to collect at
Qumran all the books which were considered authoritative at that stage,
at least in certain Jewish circles, and which became authoritative at a
later stage for all of Judaism. On the other hand, only a few books of the

36
See E. Tov, The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the
LXX, in Manchester Symposium, 1147, esp. 315; J. A. Duncan, New Readings for the
Blessing of Moses from Qumran, JBL 114 (1995) 27390.
37
Over the years, the number of the biblical texts has changed reflecting new insights
gained into the nature of the fragments, in particular due to the separation of groups of
fragments. Thus, P. W. Skehan listed 172 different scrolls in 1965: The Biblical Scrolls from
Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament, BA 28 (1965) 87100. Subsequently, the first
edition of TovPfann, Companion Volume (1993) listed 189 biblical texts, while the second
edition added four items. The contents of the different fragments of biblical texts have been
listed by Ulrich, DJD XXXIX, 185201.
38
See J. Carswell, Fastenings on the Qumran Manuscripts, DJD VI, 238 (24).
39
The absence of this book should probably be ascribed to coincidence (decaying of the
material) rather than to any other factor.
16 CHAPTER TEN
Apocrypha, and the so-called Pseudepigrapha, were represented in cave
4 (Tobit, Jubilees, Levi ar, TJud ar, TNaph). Cave 4 probably served as a
central depository for the written material owned by the Qumran
community, including some tefillin, mezuzot, and Greek texts. It is
probably not coincidental that most Qumran copies of the biblical books
which are considered to be significant for the textual analysis of the
Hebrew Bible were found in cave 4. While a text like 1QIsa
a
may be
important to our understanding of the textual transmission of the Bible,
it contains so many secondary features that its importance for the
reconstruction of the original text of Hebrew Scripture is limited.
(2) Texts in the Paleo-Hebrew Script. The great majority of the texts from
Qumran and the other sites in the Judean Desert are written in the
square script,
40
and they reflect a textual variety. A similar variety,
though on a smaller scale, is reflected in the texts written in the paleo-
Hebrew script, so that the textual character of these texts cannot serve as
a key for unscrambling the riddle of the writing in this script. The twelve
biblical texts written in the paleo-Hebrew script differ from the texts
written in the square script with regard to the scribal characteristics
inherent with the writing in that script, with regard to the almost
complete lack of scribal intervention in them, and in additional scribal
features.
41

At Qumran, fragments of twelve biblical texts written in the paleo-
Hebrew script have been found as well as a few paleo-Hebrew texts of
uncertain nature:
42
1QpaleoLev, 1QpaleoNum (same scroll as
1QpaleoLev?); 2QpaleoLev; 4QpaleoGen-Exod
l
,

4QpaleoGen
m
,
4QpaleoExod
m
, 4QpaleoDeut
r,s
, 4QpaleoJob
c
; 6QpaleoGen, 6QpaleoLev;
11QpaleoLev
a
. Three texts (4Q124125; 11Q22) are unidentified.
4QpaleoParaJosh, probably not a biblical text, contains parts of Joshua
21. Beyond Qumran, two nonbiblical texts, Mas 1o (Mas pap paleoText of
Sam. Origin [recto] and Mas pap paleoUnidentified Text [verso]) are also
written in paleo-Hebrew characters.
43

The writing in the paleo-Hebrew script must have been preserved for
the most ancient biblical books, the Torah and Jobnote that the latter is
traditionally ascribed to Moses (cf. b. B. Bat. 14b15a; cf. also manuscripts

40
According to S. Pfann, one of the minute fragments inscribed in the cryptic A script
contained a copy of the book of Leviticus: pap cryptA Lev
h
(DJD XXXVI), but more likely it
reflects a quote from that book.
41
See Scribal Practices, 2468.
42
See M. D. McLean, The Use and Development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and
Roman Periods, Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1982, 417 (University
Microfilms); P. W. Skehan and E. Ulrich, DJD IX.
43
S. Talmon, Masada VI, 13847.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 17
and editions of the Peshitta in which Job follows the Torah). Note also
that only for one of the books of the Torah (Leviticus) and Job Targumim
were found at Qumran. The longest preserved texts written in the paleo-
Hebrew script are 4QpaleoExod
m
and 11QpaleoLev
a
.
These texts, rather than preceding writing in the square script, were
actually written at a relatively late period, probably as a natural
continuation of the tradition of writing in the early Hebrew script, and
were concurrent with the use of the square script. This can be
demonstrated by a paleographical examination of the paleo-Hebrew
script,
44
and of their orthography which is not more archaic than that of
the texts written in the square script. While it is tacitly assumed by most
scholars that with the revival of the paleo-Hebrew script in the
Hasmonean period, texts were transformed from the square to the paleo-
Hebrew script,
45
it would be more natural to assume that the habit of
writing in the paleo-Hebrew script had never ceased through the
centuries. Possibly the paleo-Hebrew texts from Qumran derived from
the circles of the Sadducees; the major argument for this assumption is
the fact that most paleo-Hebrew texts reflect MT,
46
although writing in
this script was forbidden by the Pharisees.
47
One of the special
characteristics of the paleo-Hebrew texts is that they display virtually no
scribal intervention. It is possible that the Qumran scribes were
influenced by this Sadducean tradition when writing the
Tetragrammaton and other divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters in
biblical and nonbiblical texts, in order that these words, whose sanctity
was determined by the writing in this script, would not be erased. For
the analysis of the biblical texts the idiosyncrasy of these texts indicates
that not only the contents, but also the external features of the texts need
to be taken into consideration.
(3) Textual Variety. In view of the differences between the MT, LXX,
and SP known before the discoveries in the Judean Desert textual variety
among these documents was expected. The description of the Qumran
manuscripts as reflecting textual variety is now an established

44
See R. S. Hanson, Paleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age, BASOR 175 (1964)
2642.
45
Thus K. A. Mathews: The Background of the Paleo-Hebrew Texts at Qumran, in The
Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His
Sixtieth Birthday (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. OConnor; Winona Lake, Ind., 1983) 54968.
46
See Scribal Practices, Appendix 8.
47
See m. Yad. 4.5; b. Sanh. 21b; cf. b. Meg. 9a; t. Sanh. 5.7; y. Meg. 1.71bc. For details, see
Scribal Practices, 2468.
18 CHAPTER TEN
assumption among scholars.
48
It is probably an equally accepted
assumption of many scholars that these texts derived from different
places in ancient Israel, not only from Qumran. Presently scholars are not
as naive as the first generation of Qumran scholars who ascribed all the
texts found at Qumran to the Qumran community, while some of them
even tried to locate in them the characteristic ideas of that community
(see n. 56). At the same time, we do not have to go as far as Golb, who
denied any connection between the scrolls found in the caves and the
Qumran community living in Khirbet Qumran very close to cave 4.
49
We
prefer a middle course according to which some of the Qumran texts
(probably not more than thirty percent) were copied by the scribes of the
Qumran community, while the remainder were brought to Qumran from
outside. We believe that there are criteria in the realm of orthography,
morphology, and scribal practices for distinguishing between the two
groups

(below, a). In that case, it is justifiable to look for sectarian
readings, for example, in 1QIsa
a
(although I have not been able to locate
them),
50
but it is not justifiable to look for them in any text whose
connection with the Qumranites has not been established, such as
4QSam
a
, for example.
c. Classification of the Texts According to Textual Character
The classification of the Qumran texts remains a difficult assignment.
Preferably the Qumran biblical texts should be classified according to
objective criteria, but there hardly is such a criterion.
51
For one thing, the
contents of each of the caves are not homogeneous, with the exception of
caves 7 and 11.
52
The texts should not be classified by date, or by
palaeographical or codicological criteria, since none of these criteria is

48
For recent discussions, see E. Ulrich, Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups,
and Questions of Canon, in Trebolle, Madrid Qumran Congress, 1:2341; idem, The Dead
Sea Scrolls.
49
N. Golb, The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls, APSP 124
(1980) 124; idem, Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls? BA 48 (1985) 6882; idem, Khirbet
Qumran and the Manuscripts of the Judaean WildernessObservations on the Logic of
Their Investigation, JNES 49 (1990) 10314; idem, Who Wrote the Dead Sea ScrollsThe
Search for the Secret of Qumran (New York: Scribner, 1994).
50
See note 56.
51
Note, however, the attempt by I. Young to record the variants by objective criteria:
The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text, in Feasts and Fasts, A Festschrift
in Honour of Alan David Crown (ed. M. Dacy et al.; Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 11;
Sydney: University of Sydney, 2005) 81139. Young calculated the number of variants
(deviations from MT) relative to the number of words in the scrolls excluding orthographic
variants, but not differentiating between small insignificant details and major content
variations.
52
See chapter 28*, n. 2.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 19
firm. Probably the best criterion for classification is according to textual
character, even though this criterion is problematic as well. But since one
of our main interests is gaining insights into the textual nature of the
individual texts and the collection as a whole, we nevertheless have to
attempt to classify the texts according to this criterion. The first step in
this classification is an attempt to determine the principles for describing
five textual groups, and to fill in the details for each group. The second
step is to see how these groups are distributed in the individual books of
the Bible even though we should not forget that the preservation of the
Qumran fragments depends to a large degree on coincidence. But even
with these limitations it is relevant to examine, for example, how many
texts belonging to the proto-Masoretic family have been preserved in
each of the books of the Bible, and whether the various biblical books
present a different textual picture (below, d).
The principle behind this classification is the recognition that all texts
can be grouped according to the degree of closeness to the MT, LXX, or
SP without accepting the claim that these three texts are the central
pillars (recensions, texts, text-types, etc.) of the biblical text. One of the
groups in this corpus consists of texts which are not close to any of these
three entities (group e below). It may be unusual to classify ancient texts
according to the degree of their closeness to later textual witnesses,
certainly if these are medieval (MT and SP), but this comparison is
necessary, since the base forms of these texts already existed in the last
centuries before the turn of the era.
This classification can only be approximate, not only because the texts
are fragmentary (very fragmentary texts are not included in the
analysis), but also because in the stretches covered by several
fragmentary texts there is insufficient opposition between MT and SP in
the Torah and MT and the LXX in Isaiah and Ruth. The recognition of
this aspect, as well as the coverage of all the Judean Desert texts allow us
to correct statistics published earlier.
53

In the calculation of the percentages for the various groups of texts,
the numbers are based on a list of 128 biblical texts (the remaining texts
are too fragmentary for textual analysis). In this calculation, the
following principles are employed: (1) Questionable attributions to
textual groups are counted as regular ones. (2) In accord with statistical
probability, texts that are equally close to MT and SP in the Torah and to
MT and the LXX in the other books are counted as MT. (3) Texts written
according to the Qumran scribal practice (group a) are not included

53
TCHB, 1146.
20 CHAPTER TEN
separately in the statistics, since these texts are counted in other groups
in accord with their textual affiliation. (4) Texts that are characterized as
both non-aligned and close to the LXX or SP are counted as non-
aligned. (5) Since the texts of the SP group are not evidenced for books
other than the Torah, statistics for the Torah are separated from those of
the other books. All statistics are based on the data in Scribal Practices,
Appendix 8.
In the forty-six Torah texts that are sufficiently extensive for analysis
(out of a total of 51 such texts), 22 (48%) reflect (or are equally close to
the and ), 19 are non-aligned (41%), 3 exclusively reflect (6.5%), and
2 (4.5%). In the remainder of Hebrew Scripture, in the seventy-five
texts that are sufficiently extensive for analysis (out of a total of 76 such
texts), 33 texts (44%) reflect MT (or are equally close to the MT and LXX),
40 are non-aligned (53%), two reflect the LXX (3%). The overall
preponderance of MT and non-aligned texts in the Qumran corpus is
thus evident, in the Torah more MT and in the other books more the
non-aligned texts. These percentages are quite significant, and they are
telling about the preferences of the Qumran community, but they are
remote from the other sites in the Judean Desert, where all the texts
belong to the inner circle of the medieval MT (above 4A).
a. Texts Written in the Qumran Scribal Practice. It has been suggested,
especially by the present author, that a large group of Qumran texts
stand apart from the other ones because of their common use of a
distinctive orthography, morphology, and a set of scribal practices.
54
It
was recognized that a whole series of scribal features occurs almost
exclusively in texts that display a certain system of orthography and
morphology. The fact that virtually all the sectarian texts from Qumran
reflect this combined set of features has led to the suggestion that these
texts had been copied by the group of people who left the texts behind in
the Qumran caves, possibly written at Qumran itself, although this is not
a necessary part of the hypothesis. It is not claimed that these mentioned
features are characteristic of the Qumran scribal practice only. It is only
assumed that within the corpus of the texts found at Qumran these

54
Scribal Practices, 26173 (with references to literature and earlier formulations of this
theory). For criticisms, see J. Lbbe, Certain Implications of the Scribal Process of
4QSam
c
, RevQ 14 (19891990) 25565. Cross describes the orthography of these texts as a
baroque style and he includes the morphological features under the heading of
orthography: F. M. Cross, Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies, in Trebolle,
Madrid Qumran Congress, 114. See my reply, ibid., 1521; Dong-Hyuk Kim, Free
Orthography in a Strict Society: Reconsidering Tovs Qumran Orthography, DSD 11
(2004) 7281; see my reply Reply to Dong-Hyuk Kims Paper on Tovs Qumran
Orthography, DSD 11 (2004) 35960.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 21
features display a peculiar distribution. Likewise, tefillin that were
written in the Qumran scribal practice do not reflect the rabbinic
prescriptions for the contents of the tefillin,
55
while the tefillin not written
in the Qumran scribal practice, do so. On the basis of these criteria it is
now possible to identify a group of biblical texts reflecting the Qumran
scribal practice. The great majority of these texts reflect a free approach
to the biblical text which manifests itself in adaptations of unusual forms
to the context, in frequent errors, in numerous corrections, and
sometimes, also, in careless handwriting. This approach seemingly
contradicts the strict approach of the Qumran covenanters to their Bible
interpretation, but this contradiction is only apparent, as different
aspects of life are involved.
The texts belonging to this group reflect different textual
backgrounds. Some of them must have been copied from proto-
Masoretic texts, but they cannot be identified any more, since the scribes
made too many changes (thus, 1QIsa
a
could have been copied from
1QIsa
b
or a similar text, but because of his free approach, this assumption
cannot be verified [see chapter* 5]). In other cases, the textual
background of the texts can more readily be identified, as in the case of
texts copied from a text close to SP (4QNum
b
; see further group g
below). The sectarian scribe of 4QSam
c
probably copied from a text that
was both close to MT and to LXX
Luc
in 2 Samuel 1415, which in that
section probably reflects the OG translation, and should therefore be
named non-aligned. The majority of the texts written in the Qumran
practice are characterized as non-aligned (group e below) because of
their many contextual changes.
The twenty-five texts written in the Qumran practice (not all equally
convincing), often described as typical Qumran texts, comprise a sizable
group among the Qumran biblical texts. Probably the base texts of most
pesharim reflecting all the elements of the Qumran practice, belonged to
this group as well. The percentage of this group within the corpus of
Qumran biblical texts is not expressed in statistical terms in the overall
statistical analysis, since they are included in the statistics of the other
four categories, which together add up to 100 percent. At the same time,
it is noteworthy that 21 percent of the Qumran biblical scrolls were
copied by the Qumran community, a far cry from the percentage which
was assumed during the first two generations of Qumran research,
namely 100 percent.

55
See chapter 4*, 2 and also the supporting evidence analyzed by G. J. Brooke,
Deuteronomy 56 in the Phylacteries from Qumran Cave 4, in Paul, Emanuel, 5770.
22 CHAPTER TEN
If indeed a large segment of the Qumran scrolls has been penned
down by Qumran scribes, it is remarkable that they contain no sectarian
readings.
56

b. Proto-Masoretic (Proto-Rabbinic) Texts. Proto-Masoretic texts contain the
consonantal framework of MT one thousand years or more before the
time of the Masora codices. They do not seem to reflect any special
textual characteristics beyond their basic agreement with MT. These texts
are usually named proto-Masoretic, but the term proto-rabbinic, used
by F. M. Cross,
57
probably better describes their nature.
58

The exclusive closeness of fifty-seven Qumran texts to the medieval
texts (see above) is remarkable, while textual identity is spotted only for
the texts from the other sites in the Judaean Desert (see 4A).
g. Pre-Samaritan Texts. The pre-Samaritan Qumran texts (4QpaleoExod
m
,
4QExod-Lev
f
, and 4QNum
b
, and secondarily also 4QDeut
n
and possibly
4QLev
d
)
59
reflect the characteristic features of the later SP with the
exception of the latters ideological readings, but they occasionally
deviate from it.
60
It appears that one of the texts of this group formed the
basis of SP, in which the Samaritan ideological changes and phonological
features were inserted. A major characteristic feature of these texts is the
content editing of the earlier texts as described in chapter 6*, and further
the preponderance of contextually harmonizing readings.
61
Some
scholars name this group Palestinian, and there is much justification

56
Thus G. J. Brooke, E Pluribus UnumTextual Variety and Definitive Interpretation
in the Qumran Scrolls, in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (ed. T. H. Lim et
al.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000) 10719; idem, Deuteronomy 56 in the Phylacteries
from Qumran Cave 4, in Paul, Emanuel, 5770; E. Ulrich, The Absence of Sectarian
Variants in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran, in The Bible as Book, 17995.
On the other hand, two scholars believe that such sectarian readings are embedded in the
text: A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des
Alten Testaments (OBO 35; Freiburg/Gttingen: Universittsverlag/Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1981) 956; P. Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts in QumranThe Case of the
Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsa
a
(JSOTSup 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).
57
F. M. Cross, Jr., The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of the Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert, HTR 57 (1964) 28199, esp. 28792; idem, Some Notes (p. 9).
58
The Qumran proto-Masoretic group ought to be investigated with regard to possible
clusters within this group regarding spelling and content, but because of the paucity of
overlapping Qumran texts,

this investigation will be very limited. A possible clustering of
1QIsa
a,b
and 4QIsa
c,d
(of which 1QIsa
a
and 4QIsa
c
reflect the Qumran scribal practice in
their orthography), against the medieval text, is visible. See chapter 5*, 4.
59
This text is also quoted in 4QTestimonia; see n. 31.
60
See chapter 6* and E. Tov, Proto-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch, in
The Samaritans (ed. A. D. Crown; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989) 397407; N.
Jastram, A Comparison of Two Proto-Samaritan Texts from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod
m
and
4QNum
b
, DSD 5 (1998) 26489.
61
As a result the group as a whole was named harmonistic by Eshel, 4QDeut
n
.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 23
for this characterization, since these texts are not evidenced outside
Palestine. The use of this term is, however, problematic, since it may
imply that no other texts or groups of texts were extant in Palestine.
The three pre-Samaritan texts comprise no more than 6.5 percent of
the Qumran biblical texts of the Torah. Although this is a small group, it
is very significant for our understanding of the transmission of the
Hebrew Bible.
d. Texts Close to the Presumed Hebrew Source of the LXX. Although no text
was found at Qumran that is identical or almost identical to the
presumed Hebrew source of the LXX, a few texts are very close to that
translation: 4QJer
b,d
bear a strong resemblance to the LXX in
characteristic details, with regard both to the arrangement of the verses
and to their shorter text.
62
Similarly close to the LXX, though not to the
same extent, are 4QLev
d
(also close to SP), 4QDeut
q
, and secondarily also
4QSam
a
(close to the main tradition of the LXX and LXX
Luc
; see below,
group e),
63
4QNum
b
, and according to Cross (DJD XII, 84) also 4QExod
b
.
Individual agreements with the LXX are also found in additional texts,
in a somewhat large proportion in 4QDeut
c,h,j
, but these texts actually
belong to group e.
There is insufficient evidence for speculating on the internal relation
between the texts that are close to the LXX. In any event, they should not
be considered a textual group. They do not form a close-knit textual
family like the Masoretic family or the pre-Samaritan group. They
represent individual copies that in the putative stemma of the biblical
texts happened to be close to the Hebrew text from which the LXX was
translated. Since in each of the books of the LXX its Vorlage was a single
biblical text, and not a family, recension, or revision, the recognition of
Hebrew scrolls that were close to the Vorlage of the LXX is thus of limited
importance to our understanding of the relation between these texts, but
it does have bearing on our understanding of the nature of the LXX and
its Vorlage. The four texts which are close to the LXX comprise 4.5
percent of the Qumran biblical texts in the Torah (2 texts) and 3 percent
in the other books (2 texts).
e. Non-Aligned (Independent) Texts. Many Qumran texts are not
exclusively close to either the MT, LXX, or SP and are therefore
considered non-aligned. That is, they agree sometimes with MT against

62
See TCHB, 31927.
63
For an analysis, see Tov, The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls. F. M. Cross and
R. J. Saley, A Statistical Analysis of the Textual Character of 4QSamuel
a
(4Q51), DSD 13
(2006) 4660 describe this scroll as follows: 4QSam
a
stands firmly rooted in the Hebrew
textual tradition reflected in the Old Greek (p. 54).
24 CHAPTER TEN
the other texts, and sometimes with SP and/or the LXX against the other
texts. They furthermore contain readings not known from other texts.
Usually the employment of the term non-aligned merely implies that
the texts under consideration follow an inconsistent pattern of
agreements and disagreements with the MT, LXX, and SP. These
statistically independent texts are mentioned in d below. However, the
texts that are most manifestly non-aligned are texts that contain (groups
of) readings that diverge significantly from the other texts, such as
4QReworked Pentateuch (4QRP = 4Q158, 4Q364367). 4QRP exhibits
long stretches of uninterrupted text that may be classified as Scripture
such as found in either MT or the SP group.
64
This composition
rearranges some Torah pericopes,
65
and it has a relatively small number
of extensive exegetical additions.
66
In all these pluses, 4QRP resembles
the Hebrew compositions behind the Greek 1 Kings, Esther, and
Daniel.
67
Other independent texts are 4QJosh
a
, and 4QJudg
a
. 4QSam
a

holds a special position in this regard, since it is closely related to the
Vorlage of the LXX, while reflecting independent features as well.
Special sub-groups of non-aligned texts are scrolls written for a
specific purpose, viz., excerpted texts, such as 4QExod
d
, 4QDeut
j,n
,
and 4QCant
a,b
and liturgical texts, such as most Psalm texts from caves
4 and 11 (see chapters 4* and 6*). These fifty-seven independent texts
comprise 37 percent of the Qumran biblical texts in the Torah (17 texts)
and 53 percent in the other books (40 texts). This analysis followed the
customary nomenclature for the Qumran scrolls that considers the
liturgical and excerpted scrolls equally biblical as all other scrolls.
However, if they are excluded from the statistics, since they are no
regular biblical texts, the number of biblical scrolls would have to be
decreased by some forty items, and the number of independent texts
would be much smaller.
Whether we assume that all the aforementioned texts were written at
Qumran, or that only some were written there, while others were
brought from elsewhere, the coexistence of the different categories of
texts in the Qumran caves is noteworthy. The fact that all these different
texts were found in the same caves probably reflects textual plurality for

64
The pre-Samaritan text is clearly the underlying text of 4Q158 and 4Q364, and
possibly so in the case of 4Q365 (see DJD XIII, 1926). On the other hand, A. Kim, The
Textual Alignment of the Tabernacle Sections of 4Q365 (Fragments 8ab, 9ab i, 9b ii, 12a i,
12b iii), Textus 21 (2002) 4569 claims that 4Q365 is not close to SP.
65
See chapter 20*, n. 115.
66
See chapter 20*, D.
67
See chapter 20* and Tov, Many Forms.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 25
the period between the third century BCE and the first century CE.
68

Within that textual plurality the large number of proto-Masoretic texts
probably indicates their importance, while the large number of
independent texts underline the special condition of the transmission of
the biblical text. Since there is no evidence concerning the circumstances
of the depositing of the scrolls in the caves or concerning the different
status of scrolls within the Qumran sect, no solid conclusions can be
drawn about the approach of the Qumranites towards the biblical text.
But it is safe to say that they paid no special attention to textual
differences such as described here (see n. 31).
That all these different groups of texts coexisted at Qumran, and in
Palestine as a whole, shows that no fixed text or textual family had been
accepted as the central text for the country as a whole. However, that
assumption may be misleading, since in certain milieus in Palestine one
of the texts or textual families could still be the only accepted text. This,
we believe, is the case for the Masoretic family which probably was the
only acceptable text in temple circles and therefore very influential
elsewhere. The purest form of MT, transmitted without much change
into the Middle Ages, was found at Masada, as well in the somewhat
later sites Wadi Sdeir (Nahal David), Nahal Hever, Wadi Murabbaat,
and Nahal Seelim (period of the Bar Kochba revolt). This was the inner
circle of MT as found in the temple circles, and in all these sites MT
(actually, the proto-Masoretic or proto-Rabbinic text) was the sole text
used (see chapter 12*). The sociological data known about Masada fit
into this picture since the community that lived there would have
adhered to the rabbinic text. This assumption also applies to the other
sites, reflecting a reality from the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (135
CE).
69
The proto-Masoretic texts from Qumran (group b) formed a second
transmission circle copied from the inner circle.

68
In recent years, the terms pluriformity and uniformity have appeared frequently
in the scholarly discussion. See A. van der Kooij, The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible before and after the Qumran Discoveries, The Bible as Book, 16777 (17071). All agree
that at a certain point there was uniformity, but scholars disagree as to how this uniformity
was obtained. The term itself, as well as stabilization, may be misleading, as these terms
presuppose a certain movement towards that unity, which actually did not take place.
When the archeological evidence shows us that in the first century CE MT is the sole force
in power, this situation does not reflect a Kulturkampf between different texts, but it
resulted from the fact that other texts simply ceased to exist after the destruction of the
Second Temple.
69
Young, Stabilization (see n. 16) explains the differences between the Qumran and
Masada corpora as not reflecting different sociological and chronological realities, but as
reflecting different periods. In his view, the Qumran corpus as a whole (deposited in the
caves in the first century BCE!) preceded that of Masada.
26 CHAPTER TEN
If the recognition of the aforementioned five groups of texts is correct,
by definition some of the textual theories that have been suggested in the
last century cannot be maintained, especially because of our fifth group
(non-aligned texts), which is composed of texts not connected with the
MT, LXX, or SP. The assumption of such a group allows for an endless
number of individual texts, thus eliminating the possibility that all the
Qumran texts, and in fact all ancient Hebrew texts, ultimately derived
from a tripartite division of the textual sources. Elsewhere we have tried
to refute that view,
70
claiming that the textual sources of the Bible cannot
be reduced to three traditions and that these textual traditions are no
recensions or text-types, but that they are simply texts. It should
however be conceded that my own view, like all other views, is based on
certain suppositions; it is equally subjective, and like the other views, it
cannot be proven. The texts themselves should remain our point of
departure, but Davilas study
71
shows how difficult it is to find
acceptable criteria. In the wake of others, Davila takes as his point of
departure that the MT and SP of these books are text-types, rather than
texts, and he suggests that they, together with the Qumran texts, belong
to the same text-type, and that the LXX reflects a different text-type.
72

Most of the Qumran texts of Genesis and Exodus examined by Davila are
indeed close to MT, but the material is simply too fragmentary to prove
that the Qumran texts together with the MT and SP comprise one textual
entity and that this entity is a text-type.
The status of the Greek manuscripts from the Judean Desert runs
parallel to that of the Hebrew texts (see chapter 23*, III).
d. Evidence for the Individual Biblical Books
Each Scripture book reflects a different textual pattern. The main
problem inherent in this analysis is the coincidence of the textual
transmission causing certain texts to be preserved, while others have
perished. Thus, the Qumran evidence shows the existence of two
different literary editions of Jeremiah

(below, e), but similar editorial
processes may have taken place in other books as well, which
coincidentally have not been preserved. The analysis, based on

70
TCHB, 15560.
71
J. R. Davila, Text-Type and Terminology: Genesis and Exodus as Test Cases, RevQ
16 (1993) 337.
72
In our view, however, the MT and SP of Genesis and Exodus differ sufficiently in
order to be considered different entities, often recensionally different. The LXX reflects yet
a third text, often recensionally different, especially in the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11
and in Genesis 31. But this evidence does not suffice to prove either our view or the views
of Davila (reiterating those of others).
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 27
fragments large enough for textual analysis (as listed in Scribal Practices,
Appendix 8), pertains to the Qumran evidence only. The manuscripts
from the other Judean Desert sites reflects only MT (see 4A).
In the Torah an approach of limited scribal intervention, greater
precision, and less textual diversity could have been expected. However,
there is no indication that the development of divergent texts and the
textual transmission of the Torah differs from that of the other Scripture
books. Among other things, a number of Torah scrolls are written in the
careless and inconsistent system of the Qumran scribal practice
(2QExod
b
?, 4Q[Gen-]Exod
b
, 4QExod
j
?, 2QNum
b
?, 4QNum
b
, 1QDeut
a,c?,

j,k1,k2,m
).
The great majority of the ten Genesis texts reflect either MT or the
combined evidence of MT and SP. The LXX deviates from this often-
common text in small details, large enough to recognize that the Qumran
texts do not reflect that text. None of the Genesis texts is written in the
Qumran scribal practice. 4QGen
k
is non-aligned.
The nine texts of Exodus

diverge substantially. Three texts reflect the
Qumran scribal practice: 2QExod
b
?, 4Q[Gen-]Exod
b
, 4QExod
j
?, two of
them textually independent. In this book the differences between the
MT, LXX, and SP are clear-cut, so that the affinities of the Qumran
fragments can often be determined. 4QpaleoExod
m
is very close to SP,
without the latters sectarian readings, and according to Cross,
73

4QExod-Lev
f
also belongs to this category. Two texts are close to MT.
Four texts are statistically independent. 4QExod
d
is independent in
terms of content, omitting a large section.
Five of the ten manuscripts of Leviticus are equally close to MT and
SP (these two texts do not differ much from each other in Leviticus):
Statistically independent are 11QpaleoLev
a
and 11QLev
b
. On the whole
the manuscripts of Leviticus are rather homogeneous, probably due to
their contents.
74

The two manuscripts of Numbers are written in the Qumran scribal
practice (2QNum
b
?, 4QNum
b
). In its major deviations 4QNum
b
is close
to both SP and the LXX, and at the same time contains many
independent readings.

73
DJD XII, 136.
74
For an analysis, see P. W. Flint, The Book of Leviticus in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The
Book of Leviticus, Composition and Reception (ed. R. Rendtorff and R. A. Kugler; Leiden/
Boston: E. J. Brill, 2003) 32341.
28 CHAPTER TEN
Of the twenty manuscripts of Deuteronomy
75
eight are equally close
to MT and SP, and six are written in the Qumran scribal practice (see
above). The textual nature of 4QDeut
j,n
cannot be classified easily, since
they probably represent excerpted texts, probably for liturgical purposes.
Eight manuscripts are statistically independent. 4QDeut
q
is close to the
Vorlage of the LXX.
76

One of the two Joshua texts is close to MT (4QJosh
b
),
77
while 4QJosh
a

is contentswise independent, probably reflecting a different literary
editionsee e.
One of the three texts of Judges may reflect a different literary edition
(4QJudg
a
) see e.
Two of the four texts of Samuel are close to MT (1QSam, 4QSam
b
),
one is close to the LXX, 4QSam
a

78
with features of an independent text,
while 4QSam
c
, written in the Qumran scribal practice, is both close to
MT and to LXX
Luc
, and therefore textually independent.
4QKgs reflects MT. 6QpapKings is independent.
Of the fourteen Qumran manuscripts of Isaiah nine are close to MT
and secondarily also to the LXX. Two texts, written in the Qumran
scribal practice (1QIsa
a
and 4QIsa
c
) as well as 4QIsa
k
are independent.
Two of the five Jeremiah manuscripts are close to MT (4QJer
a,c
). 2QJer
written in the Qumran practice, is statistically independent, and two are
close to the LXX (4QJer
b,d
).
Two of the three manuscripts of Ezekiel are close to MT (4QEzek
b
,
11QEzek). 4QEzek
a
is statistically independent.
Five of the seven manuscripts of the Minor Prophets, three of them
written in the Qumran practice, are statistically independent.
Five of the thirty-one Psalm texts written in the Qumran scribal
practice, are statistically independent. Most of the Psalm texts reflect a
textual tradition different from MT and the other textual witnesses. At
least seven collections of psalms from caves 4 and 11 contain Psalms in a
sequence different from MT, sometimes with additional psalms added to
the canonical ones.
79
Furthermore, a major feature of the Qumran corpus
is that it contains no evidence of any scroll clearly supporting the
Masoretic Psalter except for 4QPs
c
. Outside Qumran, this collection is

75
See F. Garca Martnez, Les manuscrits du Dsert de Juda et le Deutronome, in
Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed.
F. Garca Martnez et al.; VTSup 53; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994) 6382; S. A. White, Three
Deuteronomic Manuscripts from Cave 4, Qumran, JBL 112 (1993) 2342.
76
For an analysis, see Tov, The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls, esp. 2930.
77
Thus Tov, DJD XIV.
78
See n. 63.
79
See chapter 4*, 2j.
THE BIBLICAL TEXTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT 29
represented in MasPs
a,b
and 5/6HevPs. If the view suggested by
Sanders, Wilson, and Flint according to which these scrolls reflect
alternative biblical Psalters, carries the day, it implies that the psalm texts
from caves 4 and 11 constitute the group of Qumran evidence which
deviates most from MT. However, the arguments adduced in the past in
favor of the assumption that 11QPs
a
reflects a liturgical collection also
hold with regard to the texts from cave 4,
80
and this view seems
preferable to us. The deviations from MT pertain to both the sequence of
the individual psalms and the addition and omission of psalms, among
them non-canonical Psalms.
Two of the four texts of Job are close to MT, but in this book no other
textual traditions are known since the greatly deviating LXX text was
probably shortened by the translator himself.
Both texts of Proverbs are close to MT.
All four texts of Ruth are equally close to the MT and LXX.
All three texts of Canticles are independent, one statistically (6QCant)
and two contentswise, probably reflecting excerpted texts (4QCant
a,b
).
81

The one text of Qohelet (4QQoh
a
), written in the Qumran scribal
practice, is textually independent.
One of the four texts of Lamentations, written in the Qumran scribal
practice, 4QLam, is textually independent.
Five of the six texts of Daniel are independent, while one is close to
MT. Also the other texts are closer to MT than to the LXX.
The one text of Ezra-Nehemiah (4QEzra) is close to MT.
The one text of Chronicles (4QChron) contains text beyond MT, and
should probably be classified as independent, although it is too short for
analysis. Possibly this fragment does not reflect the canonical book of
Chronicles.
82

e. Textual Transmission and Literary Criticism
The relevance of the textual witnesses for certain aspects of the literary
analysis has often been discussed, especially in the last two decades. For
the following Qumran scrolls their contribution to literary criticism has
been noticed (for all these, see chapter 11*, 2).

80
11QPs
a
contains prose as well as poetry sections showing the purpose of the collection
(focus on David). To one of the Psalms (Psalm 145) the scroll added liturgical antiphonal
additions.
81
See chapter 4*, 2i.
82
See the analysis of

G. J. Brooke, The Books of Chronicles and the Scrolls from
Qumran, Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme
Auld (ed. R. Rezetko et al.; VTSup 113; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2007) 35-48.
30 CHAPTER TEN
4QPhyl A,B,J (shorter text in Deuteronomy 5, lacking Deut 5:29-30
[32-33])
83

4QJosh
a
(different editorial strands; occasionally a shorter text).
4QJudg
a
(shorter text of chapter 6).
4QSam
a
(different edition of the Song of Hannah).
1QIsa
a
(different stages of the development of 2 Kgs 20:1-11).
84

4QJer
b,d
(shorter text and different arrangement).
85

4QPs
x
(earlier text edition).
86

According to some scholars, the different arrangements of the various
deviating Psalms scrolls (see above, 4Bd) also are relevant to the
literary criticism of the Bible, since they display texts differing
recensionally from MT and the other witnesses.

83
See the analysis of A. Rof, Deuteronomy 5:286:1: Composition and Text in the
Light of Deuteronomic Style and Three Tefillin from Qumran (4Q 128, 129, 137), Henoch 7
(1985) 114; idem, Historico-Literary Aspects of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls, in
Schiffman, Dead Sea Scrolls, 3039. On the other hand, G. J. Brooke, Deuteronomy 56 in
the Phylacteries from Qumran Cave 4, in Paul, Emanuel, 5770 ascribes the idiosyncrasies
of these phylacteries to the Qumran scribes.
84
See further E. Ulrich, The Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah: Light
from 1QIsa
a
on Additions in the MT, DSD 8 (2001) 288305.
85
See chapter 26*, notes 65, 71, 77.
86
Thus P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and P. W. Flint, DJD XVI.




CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE NATURE OF THE LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE LXX AND MT S T V, COMPARED WITH SIMILAR EVIDENCE
IN OTHER SOURCES
1. Background
The contribution of the LXX to the literary criticism of the canonical
books of the Hebrew Bible has gained increasing interest in recent years
both by scholars specializing in the Hebrew Bible and by LXX specialists.
The presence of special elements in the LXX that may date to early
periods in the history of the biblical books has always intrigued
scholars.
1
Before turning to the general background of these elements,
which are not evenly spread in the books of the Bible, we present a brief
survey
2
of the evidence relating to the contribution of textual to literary
criticism in the canonical books.
3


1
On Samuel, see Wellhausen, Samuel; O. Thenius, Die Bcher Samuels erklrt (KEH; ed.
M. Lhr; 3d ed.; Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1898); N. Peters, Beitrge zur Text-
und Literarkritik sowie zur Erklrung der Bcher Samuel (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1899).
Some earlier and later studies were analyzed by D. Barthlemy, Lenchevtrement.
Several studies, but by no means all those relevant, are mentioned in the following notes
while, in addition, many others are referred to in the notes of my own study mentioned in
n. 2. In addition, see the following general studies, in chronological sequence: N. C. Habel,
Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (GBS, Old Testament Series; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1971); R. Stahl, Die berlieferungsgeschichte des hebrischen Bibel-Textes als Problem der
TextkritikEin Beitrag zu gegenwrtig vorliegenden textgeschichtlichen Hypothesen und zur
Frage nach dem Verhltnis von Text- und Literarkritik, Ph.D. diss., Friedrich-Schiller-
University, Jena, 1978 <cf. TLZ 105 (1980) 4758>; the articles collected by Lust ,Ezekiel; H.-J.
Stipp, Das Verhltnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen
Verffentlichungen, BZ n.s. 1 (1990) 1637; idem, TextkritikLiterarkritik
Textentwicklung berlegungen zur exegetischen Aspektsystematik, ETL 66 (1990) 143
59; J. Trebolle Barrera, La Biblia juda y la Biblia cristiana (Madrid: Trotta, 1993) 41227 =
Jewish Bible, 390404; Z. Talshir, The Contribution of Diverging Traditions Preserved in the
Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible, in GreenspoonMunnich, VIII Congress, 21
41; eadem, Synchronic Approaches (see chapter 20*, n. 1); Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls; further
bibliography is found in the detailed descriptions of the individual books in P.-M. Bogaert,
Septante et versions grecques, DBSup XII (Paris 1993 [1994]) cols. 536692, esp. 576650.
2
See further my Greek and Hebrew Bible and TCU.
3
The last chapter in my TCU defines the nature of and boundary between textual and
literary criticism, and the relevance, paradoxical as it may seem, of textual sources to
literary criticism. By the same token, a study by Z. Talshir is named: The Contribution of
2 CHAPTER ELEVEN
The scope of the analysis should not be limited to the canonical shape
of the Hebrew Bible. Previously
4
I thought that only reflections of early
editorial stages such as those in the LXX of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were
relevant to the literary analysis of the Hebrew Bible, while those
subsequent to the MT edition are not, pertaining only to exegesis.
However, such a distinction is incorrect, since both types of evidence are
relevant to literary analysis and exegesis.
5

One group of literary divergences should, in my view, always be
excluded from the present discussion, namely large-scale differences
between MT S T V and LXX that can demonstrably be assigned to the
translators themselves.
6
Only if a Greek version reflects an underlying

Diverging Traditions Preserved in the Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible (see n.
1) and a long section in Trebolle Barrera, Jewish Bible is called Textual Criticism and
Literary Criticism, Duplicate and Double Editions (pp. 390404). Also Ulrich speaks often
about duplicate and double editions (see n. 22 below).
4
The literary investigation of the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible is joined by textual
data, which I formulated as follows at an earlier stage of my thinking: the redactional
stage reflected in MT S T V represents the lower limit of the literary analysis, while literary
developments subsequent to that stage are located beyond the scope of literary analysis in
the traditional sense of the word. Such later developments may be important for the
subsequent understanding of the literary shape of the canonical books, but they really
belong to the realm of exegesis. Thus, from the point of view of the canonical Hebrew
shape of the book, the additional headers of the Psalms in the LXX and Peshitta are
exponents of exegesis beyond the MT edition, and so are probably the so-called apocryphal
Additions in the LXX versions of Esther and Daniel. If several of the large-scale additions
and changes in the LXX of 1 Kings are midrashic, as suggested by Gooding (see chapter
20,* n. 24), they too are later than the canonical shape of the Hebrew Bible. In TCU, 240 I
therefore still said: The purpose being thus defined, literary developments subsequent to
the edition of MT S T V are excluded from the discussion. This pertains to presumed
midrashic developments in the books of Kings, Esther, and Daniel reflected in the LXX*.
However, there is now room for a more refined appraisal of the data.
5
The literary development between the assumed first, short, edition of Jeremiah (LXX,
4QJer
b,d
) and the second one (MT S T V) is exegetical, and is of major interest for
scholarship as it presumably preceded the edition included in MT S T V. At the same time,
had the LXX of Jeremiah preserved an edition subsequent to that of MT S T V, one that may
have been termed midrashic, it should have been of similar interest. This is the case with
the LXX forms of Esther, Daniel, and 1 Kings (see chapter 20*), and therefore the major
deviations from MT in these books should not be brushed aside because they possibly
postdate the MT edition. Besides, another aspect should also be taken into consideration:
some scholars consider the literary divergences in Esther and Daniel anterior to the literary
shape of MT S T V (see below), while others regard them as subsequent to that edition. It
would therefore be safest to consider all these series of divergences relevant to literary
analysis.
6
Obviously, it is difficult to make a distinction between differences created by
translators and similar ones found in the translators Vorlage, but when such a distinction
can be made, the translators input should be considered exegetical only, and not relevant
to the literary history of the book. See below, group 4.
LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES 3
Semitic text, may it be thought of as representing a link in the chain of
the literary development of the book.
7

2. The Evidence of the LXX
When turning to the evidence of the LXX, in spite of the open approach
advocated in 1 above, the description nevertheless makes a distinction
between different types of material in the LXX. The following relevant
LXX evidence is known to me, although undoubtedly more data are
waiting for literary analysis in the treasure stores of that translation.
8

a. In several books, major elements in the text of the LXX have been
recognized as reflecting an earlier edition of a biblical book or chapter(s).
No consensus has been reached on the nature of most of the literary
divergences between textual witnesses, thus rendering this summary
subjective, stressing certain divergences between the LXX and MT S T V,
while omitting others. In each instance, some scholars express a different
opinion on what is considered here a redactional difference between the
LXX and MT S T V; for example, when someone ascribes the divergence
to a translators tendency to expand or shorten. In all these cases, we
make a shortcut in the description when accepting here, without
analysis, the view that a translator found before him a different Hebrew
text, while cases in which the translator presumably shortened or
expanded his Vorlage are mentioned in group 4.
In four instances, the reconstructed Vorlage of the LXX differed from
MT S T V mainly with regard to its shortness (see TCHB, chapter 7).
The most clear-cut case is Jeremiah in which the LXX (joined by
4QJer
b,d
), some fifteen percent shorter than MT in its number of words,
verses, and pericopes, and sometimes arranged differently (chapter 10
and the oracles against the nations), reflects an earlier edition, often
named edition I. The second edition added various new ideas. See
chapter 26*, notes 66, 71, and 77.
The LXX of Ezekiel is 45 percent shorter than MT S T V and in one
case (7:3-9) the arrangement of the two editions differed much, involving
new ideas. Furthermore, two small sections (12:26-28 and 32:25-26) and
one large section (36:23c-38) are lacking in P.Chester Beatty (Pap. 967)
dating to the second or early third century CE, in the latter case attested

7
The situation is a little more complicated, since the LXX developed from its status as a
mere translation of the Hebrew Bible to an independent literary source for generations of
Christian interpretations. Nevertheless, the literary shape of the LXX is less relevant to
literary criticism of the Hebrew Bible if it was created by a translator.
8
Earlier less complete lists were provided by Swete, Introduction, 24264; O. Munnich in
Bible grecque, 17282; Trebolle Barrera, Jewish Bible, 390404.
4 CHAPTER ELEVEN
to also in La
Wirc
. According to Lust, probably all three sections were
lacking in the Old Greek translation as well as its Hebrew source.
9

The LXX of 1 Samuel 1618 is significantly shorter than MT S T V
(by some forty-five percent) and apparently represents one version of the
story of David and Goliath, to which a second one, with different
tendencies, was juxtaposed in the edition of MT S T V which therefore
contains a composite account.
The list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the LXX of Nehemiah 11
(2 Esdras 21) is considerably shorter than in MT S T V in vv 25-35, and
possibly more original, displaying two different stages in the
development of the list.
10
That list or those lists are again different from
the parallel list in 1 Chronicles 9.
11

In several other instances the differences between the two literary
editions pertain to more than one aspect of the text and not only to length.
The edition of Joshua reflected in the LXX differs in several ways
from MT S T V. In some segments, the LXX is shorter (possibly joined by
4QJosh
a
frg. 18 in Josh 8:14-18) and in other segments it is longer (note
especially the end of Joshua in the LXX pointing to a shorter, combined
version of JoshuaJudges), and in yet other pericopes different details are
found, including the different position of Josh 8:30-35 of MT.
12


9
J. Lust, Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel, in Earliest Text of the
Hebrew Bible, 8392. See also earlier studies by Lust: De samenhang van Ez. 3640, TvT 20
(1980) 2639; Ezekiel 3640 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript, CBQ 43 (1981) 51733. See
further P.-M. Bogaert, Le tmoignage de la Vetus Latina dans ltude de la tradition des
Septante: Ezchiel et Daniel dans le papyrus 967, Bib 59 (1978) 38495. Lust noted that the
minuses in 12:26-28 and 32:25-26 could have been created by way of parablepsis (note the
same phrases at the beginnings and endings of the minuses), but he considered the
assumption of a shorter text more likely. In all three cases, the main manuscripts of the LXX
reflect a longer text, like MT; the longer Greek text was created secondarily, according to
Lust, who recognized signs of lateness in the main text of 12:26-28 and 36:23-38. Lust also
recognized common themes in the segments that would have been added in Hebrew and
later in Greek (eschatological and apocalyptic themes).
10
See TCU, 257. According to D. Bhler, On the Relationship between Textual and
Literary CriticismTwo Recensions of the Book of Ezra: EzraNeh (MT) and 1 Esdras
(LXX), in Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible, 3550 (48), the MT edition reflects a geographical
reality of Maccabean times.
11
See, in great detail, G. N. Knoppers, Sources, Revisions, and Editions: The Lists of
Jerusalems Residents in MT and LXX Nehemiah 11 and 1 Chronicles 9, Textus 20 (2000)
14168. Knoppers (p. 167) talks about two stages in the growth of a single literary unit.
12
Beyond the analyses adduced in TCU, different editions of the same unit in Joshua
were described in detail by L. Mazor, The Septuagint Translation of the Book of JoshuaIts
Contribution to the Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and
Ideological Development, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1994 (Heb. with
Eng. summ.). Singled out for treatment were: the account of the Israelites circumcision at
the Hill of Foreskins (5:2-9), the curse upon the rebuilder of Jericho (6:26), the victory at Ai
(8:1-29), and the tribal allotment (according to Mazor, the LXX almost always reflects an
earlier text, and MT shows signs of lateness and revision). In Joshua 24, A. Rof described
LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES 5
In Genesis, the SP and LXX (albeit with differences between them)
on the one hand, and MT S T V on the other, differ systematically in their
presentation of the chronological data in the genealogies, especially in
chapters 5, 8, and 11. The originality of any one system has not been
determined.
In the Song of Hannah, three parallel editions in MT, LXX, and
4QSam
a
display distinct theological tendencies.
13

12 Kings displays extensive chronological differences between MT
S T V and the LXX with regard to synchronisms and the counting of the
years of the divided monarchy. According to several scholars (see TCU,
253), the chronological system underlying the LXX has been altered to
the system now reflected in MT. Also in matters of content, the Greek
version of 12 Kings (34 Reigns) differs recensionally much from MT.
The Greek version could reflect a later version of the Hebrew book (see
below), or a redactional stage anteceding that of MT. In his study of 1
Kings 214, A. Schenker accepts the second possibility, assuming that the
edition of MT S T V changed the earlier edition reflected in the LXX.
14

Equally old elements are found in the LXX version of 1 Kgs 20:10-20
mentioning groups of dancing men as well as King Davids dances,
elements which were removed from MT, according to Schenker,
probably in the second century BCE.
The Greek text of Chronicles is sometimes redactionally shorter,
15

while in one case it adds elements.
16


the variants of the LXX as reflecting a coherent picture: The Story of the Assembly in
Sichem (Josh 24:1-28, 31),Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress for Jewish Studies
(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999) 1725.
13
Greek and Hebrew Bible, chapter 29.
14
Schenker, Septante. Schenker dates the MT edition to between 250 and 130 BCE,
probably closer to the later end of this spectrum (see pp. 367, 1523). Among other things,
Schenkers view is based on the Greek version of 1 Kgs 2:35. According to the MT of this
verse, Solomon appointed Zadok the priest instead of Ebiatar, while according to the
LXX, Zadok was appointed as the first priest. Schenker considers LXX the earlier version
reflecting the appointment of the high priests by the kings, while MT reflects a later reality
which was initiated with Simon Maccabee in 140 BCE when kings could no longer make
such appointments. According to Schenker, MT repressed the earlier formulation in this
case as well as in one other. The singular twmbh tyb of MT 1 Kgs 12:31 and 2 Kgs 17:29, 32
replaced the earlier plural reading of oi[kou" ejf uJyhlw`n (et sim.) in the LXX. According to
Schenker (pp. 1446), the plural of the LXX reflected the earlier reality of more than one
sanctuary in Shechem, which was changed by MT to reflect the building of a single
Samaritan sanctuary. Therefore, this correction (also reflected in the OG, reconstructed
from the Vetus Latina in Deut 27:4) may be dated to the period of the existence of a temple
on Mt. Gerizim between 300 and 128 BCE.
15
The text omits the posterity of Ham, except for the Cushites, and the longer of the two
lists of the posterity of Shem (1 Chr 1:10-16, 17b-23).
6 CHAPTER ELEVEN
According to Pohlmann and Bhler, the literary shape of several
chapters in 1 Esdras is older than the MT edition of the parallel chapters
in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.
17
Bhler describes in detail how 1
Esdras depicts the situation in Jerusalem differently from the picture
drawn by Ezra-Nehemiah. In Esdras, Jerusalem was inhabited at the
time of Zerubbabel and Ezra, while in Ezra-Nehemiah this occurred
during Nehemiahs time.
18

According to some scholars, the recensionally different editions of
the LXX and Lucianic text (A-Text) of Esther preceded the edition of
MT S T V.
19
According to Milik,
20
another early version of that book was
reflected in 4Q550 and 4Q550
ae
(4QprEsther
af
ar), although most
scholars see no connection between these Qumran texts and the biblical
book of Esther.
21

According to some scholars, the Vorlage of the LXX of Daniel
differing recensionally from MT, especially in chapters 46, preceded
that of MT.
22
In addition to the main text of the LXX, Pap. 967 displays

16
It adds elements from 2 Kgs 23:24-27, 31b-33 and 34:1-4 in 2 Chr 35:19a-d, 36:2a-c, 5a-
d. For an analysis, see L. C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles (VTSup 25; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974)
2136.
17
K.-F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Schloss des
chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FRLANT 104; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970).
18
Various opinions, reviewed in 1991 by A. Schenker, have been suggested concerning
its relation to the canonical books; according to Schenker himself, this book contains
midrashic, and hence late, elements (pp. 2468): A. Schenker, La relation dEsdras A au
texte massortique dEsdras-Nhmie, in Tradition of the TextStudies Offered to Dominique
Barthlemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday (ed. G. J. Norton and S. Pisano; OBO 109;
Freiburg/Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 21849.
19
See TCU, 255. According to Clines and Fox, the L text reflects a different and pristine
text, which helps us to reconstruct the development of the book.

See D. J. A. Clines, The
Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (JSOTSup 30; Sheffield, 1984); M. V. Fox, The Redaction of
the Books of Esther (SBLMS 40; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). As for the Lucianic text, this
version has little to do with the Lucianic tradition in the other books of the LXX; see R.
Hanhart, Esther, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum, etc., VIII, 3 (Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 8795.
20
J. T. Milik, Les modles aramens du livre dEsther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrn, in
Mmorial J. Starcky (ed. E. Puech and F. Garca Martnez; Paris: Gabalda, 1992) 321406.
21
See especially S. White Crawford, Has Esther Been Found at Qumran? 4QProto-
Esther and the Esther Corpus, RevQ 17 (1996) 315 ff.
22
See O. Munnich, Texte Massortique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel, in Earliest
Text of the Hebrew Bible, 93120; Albertz, Daniel. R. Grelot assumes a different editorial
model in chapter 4, see La Septante de Daniel IV et son substrat smitique, RB 81 (1974)
523; idem, La chapitre V de Daniel dans la Septante, Sem 24 (1974) 4566. A similar view
on Daniel was developed on the basis of Notre Dame dissertations by D. O. Wenthe and S.
P. Jeansonne by E. Ulrich, Double Literary Editions of Biblical Narratives and Reflections
on Determining the Form to Be Translated, in DSS, 3450, esp. 4044. According to Ulrich,
the editions of both MT and the LXX (OG) reflect revised expansions of an earlier edition.
LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES 7
the chapters in a different sequence (14, 7, 8, 5, 6, 912, Bel, Suzanna),
an arrangement which may reflect an earlier edition.
Smaller differences between the LXX and MT S T V are mentioned
in TCU as differences in sequence (pp. 2578) and minor differences
(pp. 25860). These smaller differences (such as Deut 6:4; 32:43 in the
LXX) also may be relevant for literary analysis especially when
combined into a larger picture or tendency.
b. In some cases, the LXX has been recognized as reflecting large-scale
redactional differences from MT S T V which were created after the
edition of MT.
The OG of Esther reflects a rewritten book reworking a text like
MT.
23
The A-Text (Lucianic text)
24
likewise reflects a later text.
25

According to some scholars, the large-scale differences between MT
S T V and LXX in 1 Kings belong to the same category.
26

The translator and reviser of Jeremiah considered Bar 1:13:8 an
integral part of Jeremiah when including these chapters in the translation
and, probably, revision, as shown by the Greek version of the second
part of the book (Jeremiah 2952 [according to the sequence of the LXX]
+ Bar 1:13:8).
27

The OG of Daniel 46 reflects a rewritten book of a text like MT.
28

c. The editorial deviations of the LXX from MT S T V were described
above as either preceding or following that edition.
29
In several
instances, however, such a decision cannot be made; in these cases the
existence of parallel Hebrew editions cannot be excluded. Thus, in the
editorial differences between the LXX and MT S T V in Proverbs
regarding the internal sequence of chapters and pericopes in chapters
2431, no single sequence can be preferred. The LXX of Psalms differs
from the edition of MT S T V in a few limited, but important, editorial
details, namely the inclusion of Psalm 151 and the combining or

23
See chapter 20*.
24
See n. 19.
25
See my Greek and Hebrew Bible, chapter 37. Also Jobes believes that the L text of Esther
is based on a Hebrew original, much shorter than MT S T V, but very similar to that text
where the two overlap: K. H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to
the Masoretic Text (SBLDS 153; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). On the other hand, K. de
Troyer, Het einde van de Alpha-tekst van Ester (Leuven: Peeters, 1997) believes that L
presents an inner-Greek revision not based on a different Hebrew Vorlage.
26
See chapter 20*.
27
See my study Jeremiah and Baruch.
28
See chapter 20*.
29
Their inclusion in either group 1 or 2 is subjective and, as mentioned above, different
opinions have been expressed on each group of variations.
8 CHAPTER ELEVEN
separating of some Psalms differently from the edition of MT S T V.
30

The much deviating Greek text of Exodus 3540 probably reflects a
deviating Hebrew text.
31

d. In yet other cases, when large-scale differences between the LXX
and MT S T V were most likely created by the translators themselves, by
definition they do not pertain to the literary development of the LXX, but
rather to the exegesis of a single translator or reviser. This appears to be
the case with the Greek translation of Job.
32

3. The LXX and the Other Ancient Sources
In spite of the uncertainties described above, the LXX does reflect many
large-scale redactional deviations from MT S T V. Before trying to
understand the unique relation between the LXX and MT S T V, the
LXXs comparative position with regard to the other ancient sources
should be evaluated.
33

When comparing the LXX with the other ancient versions one notes
that beyond MT, the LXX is the single most significant source of
information pertaining to the editorial development of the biblical books.
No such information is included in any other ancient version. Some
evidence of the Old Latin runs parallel with the LXX,
34
but since that

30
MT 9, 10 = LXX 9; MT 114, 115 = LXX 113; MT 116 = LXX 114 + 115; MT 147 = LXX 146
+ 147.
31
See chapter 20*, n. 7.
32
This translation is one-sixth shorter than its counterpart in MT S T V, and also appears
to have been created by a free translator who shortened his Vorlage considerably. See G.
Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint, I. The Book of Job (LU 43, 2; Lund: Gleerup, 1946); D. H.
Gard, The Exegetical Method of the Greek Translator of the Book of Job (JBL Monograph Series 8;
1952); H. M. Orlinsky, Studies in the Septuagint of the Book Job, II, HUCA 29 (1958) 229
71. The free character of the Greek translation was analyzed in detail by J. Ziegler, Der
textkritische Wert der Septuaginta des Buches Job, Sylloge, Gesammelte Aufstze zur
Septuaginta (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 928.
33
In this comparison, we try to assess the relation between the LXX and the other
ancient sources, but in some instances we are not certain that the LXX reflects a different
Hebrew or Aramaic Vorlage relevant to the literary history of the Bible. Nevertheless, in the
following discussion it is taken for granted that the LXX does indeed reflect important
differences in such books as Joshua, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. At the same time, the situation is
not as difficult as these remarks imply, since there is some external evidence supporting the
aforementioned reconstruction of the LXX, namely 4QJer
b,d
and 4QJosh
a
, and some support
from SP for the chronological deviations of the LXX from the MT of Genesis.
34
This pertains to the shorter Old Latin version of Jeremiah 39 and 52: P.-M. Bogaert,
La libration de Jrmie et le meurtre de Godolias: le texte court (LXX) et la rdaction
longue (TM), in Fraenkel, Septuaginta, 31222; see further Bogaerts study Limportance
de la Septante et du Monacensis de la Vetus Latina pour lexgse du livre de lExode
(chap. 3540), in M. Vervenne, Studies in the Book of ExodusRedactionReception
Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1996) 399427. This also
LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES 9
version was translated from Greek, this evidence points in the same
direction as that of the LXX. A few deviations from MT in the Peshitta of
Chronicles should also be mentioned.
35

The LXX may also be compared with the SP and the pre-Samaritan
Qumran texts (the SP-group) which likewise contain material that is
significant on a literary level:
4QpaleoExod
m
, 4QNum
b
, and the later SP systematically reworked
the recounting of Israels history in Moses first speech in Deuteronomy
13.
36

The SP and the pre-Samaritan Qumran texts systematically
harmonized a few select stories in the Torah so as to avoid what they
considered to be internal inconsistencies.
37

The single most pervasive change in the SP is probably the
rewritten Decalogue in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 involving the
addition
38
of a sectarian tenth commandment
39
referring to the sanctity
of Mount Gerizim.
All this material is comparable to the aforementioned LXX evidence
and the Qumran evidence to be mentioned below. With regard to the SP
group, all the evidence for redactional changes seems to be subsequent
to the literary edition included in MT,
40
but that assumption does not
make the material less important. The editing involved was meant to
create a more perfect and internally consistent textual structure.
However, the editing procedure itself was inconsistent, since certain
details were changed while similar ones were left untouched.
This leads us to the Qumran biblical texts reflecting scattered
information relevant to literary criticism and hence potentially parallel to

pertains to the Old Latin version of Ezek 36:23c-38 in codex Wirceburgensis, as well as to
individual readings, not involving large-scale variations, in the historical books as
recognized by J. C. Trebolle Barrera: Jeh y Jos. Texto y composicin literaria de 2 Reyes 911
(Institucin San Jeronimo 17; Valencia, 1984); From the Old Latin through the Old
Greek to the Old Hebrew (2 Kings 10,23-25), Textus 11 (1984) 1736; La primitiva
confesin de fe yahvista (1 Re 18,36-37). De la crtica textual a la teologa bblica,
Salmanticensis 31 (1984) 181205; Old Latin, Old Greek and Old Hebrew in the Book of
Kings (1 Ki. 18:27 and 2 Ki. 20:11), Textus 13 (1986) 8594; Le texte de 2 Rois 7,208,5 la
lumire des dcouvertes de Qumrn (6Q4 15), RevQ 13 (1988) 5618.
35
A few clusters of verses are lacking in this translation, e.g. 1 Chr 2:47-49; 4:16-18, 34-
37; 7:34-38; 8:17-22.
36
See chapter 6*.
37
See ibid.
38
See chapter 6*, n. 12.
39
See F. Dexinger, Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner, in Studien zum
Pentateuch Walter Kornfeld zum 60 Geburtstag (ed. G. Braulik; Vienna/Freiburg/Basel:
Herder, 1977) 11133.
40
See chapter 6*.
10 CHAPTER ELEVEN
the LXX. As in the case of the LXX, our assessment of the data is
subjective, and furthermore the complexity of the comparison of the
complete Qumran corpus with a single text, the LXX, is also problematic.
However, it seems that such a comparison is legitimate, because the
amalgam of the different books of the LXX is comparable to the Qumran
corpus of biblical texts, even if the latter is more extensive than the LXX.
The Qumran corpus is very fragmentary, but often the character of a
book is recognizable in a small fragment, such as the Jeremiah fragments
from cave 4. This analysis allows us to claim that the Qumran corpus,
though much larger than the LXX, reflects much fewer literary
differences of the type found in the LXX.
4QJer
b,d
: The best example of early redactional evidence is probably
found in these two texts whose evidence in shortness and sequence
tallies with the LXX, while deviating from the edition of MT S T V.
4QJosh
a
: The section which in MT LXX S T V reports the building of
an altar after several episodes of the conquest (8:30-35), is located at an
earlier place in the story in 4QJosh
a
, before 5:1, immediately after the
crossing of the Jordan, probably parallel to its position apud Josephus,
Ant. V:1619. According to Ulrich, the sequence of events in 4QJosh
a
,
which probably reflects the original shape of the story, shows that the
Qumran text constituted

a third formulation of Joshua, alongside MT S T
V and LXX.
41
Furthermore, 4QJosh
a
contains an occasionally shorter text
similar to that of the LXX.
42

4QSam
a
probably reflects a different edition of the Song of Hannah
from those reflected in MT and the LXX (see above). Many other details
in this manuscript reflect a different, possibly older version of Samuel,

41
E. Ulrich, 4QJoshua
a
and Joshuas First Altar in the Promised Land, in Brooke
Garca Martnez, New Qumran Texts, 89104. On the other hand, according to A. Rof, The
Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosh
a
, ibid., 7380, the scroll displays a
later, nomistic change of the MT sequence. For similar sequence differences in other
passages, see Tov, Greek and Hebrew Bible, 4118. On the other hand, M. N. van der Meer,
Formation & ReformulationThe Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual
Witnesses (VTSup 102; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004) 5119 claimed that the Qumran
scroll does not reflect the sequence suggested in the scrolls edition in DJD XIV. In his view,
part of the description of Josh 8:30-35 (viz., the reading of the Torah) was included in the
story of crossing the Jordan at Gilgal in the scroll, and repeated ad loc. in 8:30-35 Another
study that suggests literary differences between the various texts of Joshua is K. De Troyer,
Did Joshua Have a Crystal Ball? The Old Greek and the MT of Joshua 10:15, 17 and 23, in
Paul, Emanuel, 57189.
42
Frgs. 1516 of this scroll present a recensionally shorter text than MT that runs parallel
to the shorter text of the LXX, although the two are not identical. Cf. Mazor, Septuagint
Translation, 546 and eadem, A Textual and Literary Study of the Fall of Ai in Joshua 8, in
The Bible in the Light of Its Interpreters, Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume (ed. S. Japhet; Heb.;
Jerusalem 1994) 73108.
LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES 11
but it is unclear to what extent it also reflects a redactionally earlier stage
in these details. Some material may be midrashic (see the beginning of
col. II), as suggested by Rof
43
for the scroll as a whole.
4QJudg
a
lacks an entire section found in MT LXX S T V, viz., Judg
6:710. If this minus did not stem from a textual accident, such as the
omission of a complete paragraph ending with open sections, it could
reflect an earlier edition of the book, in which part of the
deuteronomistic framework, contained in these verses, was lacking.
44

1QIsa
a
38:1-8. The different hands in chapter 38 in the scroll may
reflect different stages of the development of 2 Kgs 20:1-11.
45

4QRP, reclassified as a biblical manuscript, contains several long
exegetical additions.
46

It is more difficult to categorize the evidence of other Qumran
manuscripts, whose short or different text deviates from MT LXX S T V
but is not related to the issue at stake because the compositions do not
constitute biblical manuscripts in the usual sense of the word. The
relevant evidence, relating to the short texts of 4QCant
a,b
, 4QDeut
n
,
4QDeut
j
, 4QDeut
k1
(sections of Deuteronomy 5, 11, and 32) and other
texts is described in chapter 4*. The Deuteronomy texts were probably
liturgical excerpts. Likewise, several Psalms texts are considered by most
scholars to be non-biblical liturgical collections.
47
The Canticles
manuscripts
48
are probably excerpted versions of the edition of MT LXX
S T V.
49
The Qumran corpus also contains excerpted and abbreviated
biblical manuscripts which were probably compiled for personal
purposes: 4QExod
d
,
50
4QDeut
q
(Deut 32:37-43); 4QEzek
b
;
51
1QPs
a
,

43
A. Rof, The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and its Occurrence in
4QSam
a
, RevQ 14 (1989) 24754.
44
See TCHB, 351 and J. Trebolle Barrera, Textual Variants in 4QJudg
a
and the Textual
and Editorial History of the Book of Judges, RevQ 14 (1989) 22945; idem, in DJD XIV,
1619; N. Fernndez Marcos, The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Judges, in The Earliest Text
of the Hebrew Bible, 116. On the other hand, Rof believes that the omission in the scroll
was created by a scribal mistake (deletion of a paragraph), and that the relatively late scroll
would not reflect such an early development: A. Rof, The Biblical Text in Light of
Historico-Literary CriticismThe Reproach of the Prophet-Man in Judg 6:7-10 and
4QJudg
a
, in Border Line, 3344.
45
See TCHB, 3468.
46
See chapter 20*, E and Tov, Many Forms.
47
See chapter 4*.
48
See DJD XVI, 195219 and plates XXIVXXV.
49
On the other hand, E. Ulrich describes these texts as earlier than or parallel with MT:
The Qumran Biblical Scrolls and the Biblical Text, in Schiffman, Dead Sea Scrolls, 519,
esp. 578.
50
See chapter 4*, 2.
51
See J. E. Sanderson, DJD XV, 216.
12 CHAPTER ELEVEN
4QPs
g
, 4QPs
h
, 5QPs all containing Psalm 119; 4QPs
n
(135:6-8, 11-12;
136:23-24); 4QPs
l
(Psalm 104); 4QDan
e
.
52

In short, probably only five or six biblical texts from Qumran, and
none at all from the other sites in the Judaean Desert, provide early
material relevant to the editorial development of the Hebrew Bible.
53

The list of biblical Qumran texts attesting to early redactional stages
different from MT LXX S T V is thus rather limited. Should we present a
longer list, most additional items contributing to the literary analysis of
the Bible will probably be conceived of as subsequent to the edition of
MT LXX S T V. Consequently, according to this understanding, in
addition to MT, the LXX remains the major source for recognizing
different literary stages (early and late) of the Hebrew Bible.
4. Evaluation of the Literary Evidence of the LXX
Having reviewed the evidence of the LXX, other biblical versions, and
the Qumran manuscripts, we note that beyond MT, the LXX preserves
the greatest amount of information on different stages in the
development of the Hebrew Bible, early and late.
When turning now to the background of this situation, we may not be
able to explain the data. If we were groping in the dark in the earlier
parts of this study, this section is even more hypothetical. Yet, if our
assessment of the totality of the biblical evidence is correct, the
assumption is unavoidable that the Hebrew manuscripts used for the
Greek translation were important copies of the Hebrew Bible, since
otherwise they would not have contained so much material which
scholars consider relevant to the literary development of the biblical
books. How should this phenomenon be explained?
The special character of the Vorlage of the LXX seems to be related to
two factors or a combination of them: (1) the idiosyncratic Hebrew
manuscripts used for the Greek translation were not embraced by the
circles that fostered MT; and (2) the relatively early date of the
translation enterprise (275150 BCE), involving still earlier Hebrew
manuscripts, could reflect vestiges of earlier editorial stages of the
biblical books.
54
The earlier the date assigned to the Vorlage of the LXX,

52
See E. Ulrich, DJD XVI, 287.
53
We exclude from this analysis the evidence of 4QTestimonia (4Q175) and the tefillin,
even though they contain biblical passages. These texts were compiled on the basis of
biblical texts for specific purposes, literary (4QTestimonia) and liturgical (tefillin).
54
There is no evidence for the alternative assumption that the LXX was based on
Hebrew texts of a local Egyptian vintage. If the Jewish population of Egypt hardly knew
LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES 13
the more likely the text was to reflect early redactional stages of the
biblical books. However, only a combination of the two factors explains
that very old texts, such as probably reflected in the LXX, still circulated
in the third-second centuries BCE, when some of the proto-Masoretic texts
known to us already existed. This approach does not explain the cases in
which the LXX presumably reflects editorial stages subsequent to MT. In
these cases we have to appeal also to the special status of the Vorlage of
the LXX in ancient Israel, in other words to its independence from the
circles which embraced MT (factor 1).
When ascribing the idiosyncratic character of the Hebrew
manuscripts included in the LXX to their early date, we find some
support for this approach in the Qumran documents. A few early
Qumran texts, similarly deriving from the third and second centuries
BCE, reflect redactional differences from MT. Thus, two Qumran
manuscripts contain the same early redactional stage as the LXX, namely
4QJer
b
and 4QJer
d
(both: 200150 BCE), while 4QJosh
a
is relatively early
(15050 BCE). At the same time, two other manuscripts possibly reflecting
early literary stages are later: 4QJudg
a
(5025 BCE) and 4QSam
a
(5025
BCE). The evidence for Qumran is thus not clear-cut, but neither is it
unequivocal for the LXX. For only some of the LXX books reflect
redactionally different versions and by the same token only some of the
early Qumran manuscripts are independent vis--vis MT. Nevertheless,
the picture is rather clear. Among the eighteen Qumran manuscripts
which were assigned by their editors to the same period as the LXX,
55
the
two mentioned manuscripts of Jeremiah contain redactionally different
elements, but the number of non-Masoretic manuscripts which are
textually non-aligned in small details is very high.
56
Thus, according to
our tentative working hypothesis, the early date of the Hebrew
manuscripts used by the LXX translations in some books and of some of
the Qumran manuscripts may explain their attesting to early literary
traditions. The assumption that the LXX was based on very ancient
Hebrew manuscripts that were brought to Egypt in the fifth or fourth
century would seem to provide an adequate explanation for the

Hebrew, they would not have developed their own Hebrew version of the biblical text (pace
the assumption of local texts as developed by Albright and Cross; see TCHB, 1857).
55
This information is based on B. Webster, Chronological Indices of the Texts from the
Judaean Desert, DJD XXXIX, 351446.
56
Of these eighteen manuscripts, seven are considered textually independent in small
details: 4QExod
d
(225175 BCE), 4QDeut
b
(150100 BCE), 4QDeut
c
(150100 BCE), 5QDeut
(200150 BCE), 6QpapKings (150100 BCE), 4QQoh
a
(175150 BCE), 4QXII
a
(150125 BCE),
and one is close to SP: 4QExod-Lev
f
(250 BCE). The others are either close to MT, or their
textual affiliation cannot be determined.
14 CHAPTER ELEVEN
background of the LXX, but since we find redactionally early
manuscripts from the second and first centuries BCE also in Qumran, that
explanation need not be invoked.
A supplementary explanation of the special character of the LXX
seems to be that the scrolls used for that translation came from circles
different from the temple circles which supposedly fostered MT.
57
This
argument pertaining to the textual situation at the time when
manuscripts were selected for the Greek translation, is hypothetical with
regard to the central position of MT in temple circles. However, the fact
remains that none of the MT texts was used for the Greek translation.
While we cannot depict the early history of the biblical text on the
basis of the limited evidence described so far, nevertheless an attempt
will be made to illuminate a few shady areas.
It seems that most cases of different literary editions preserved in the
textual witnesses reflect editorial developments in a linear way, one
edition having been developed from an earlier one, preserved or not,
while there also may have been intervening stages which have not been
preserved. For example, the long editions of MT in Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and 1 Samuel 1618 probably developed from earlier shorter editions
such as reflected in the LXX and 4QJer
b,d
. In other cases the evidence is
more complex, such as in Joshua where the LXX edition is both shorter,
longer, and different in wording. However, in all these instances, a linear
development between the LXX and MT editions or vice versa may be
assumed, with the later edition mainly expanding the earlier one, while
at times also shortening and changing its message.
58

Any reply to the question of why texts of the MT family were not
used for the LXX translation remains a matter of conjecture. It probably

57
Several statements in the rabbinic literature mention one or more master copies of the
Torah in the temple, as well as limited textual activity, including correcting and revising
(for some references, see TCHB, 32). Since the only text quoted in the rabbinic literature and
used as the base for the Targumim and Vulgate is MT, it stands to reason that it was the
text embraced by the rabbis. Furthermore, all the texts used by the religious zealots of
Masada and the freedom fighters of Bar Kochba found at all other sites in the Judean
Desert except for Qumran are identical to the medieval MT. These are probably the
corrected copies mentioned in b. Pesah. 112a, while the proto-Masoretic texts found at
Qumran are one step removed from these corrected texts. See chapter 12*.
58
The alternative assumption of the existence of pristine parallel editions has been
raised often in scholarship, but it seems that it cannot be supported by the preserved
evidence, neither with regard to major variations, nor with regard to smaller ones. A
possible exception would be the case of Proverbs, where two equally viable arrangements
of the pericopes are reflected in the LXX and MT S T V. However, even this case does not
necessarily prove the existence of early parallel editions. It only shows that scholars are
often unable to decide which text developed from another one, while in reality one may
have developed from the other.
LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES 15
seems rather unusual to us, having been exposed for two thousand years
to the central position of MT, that MT was not used for this purpose. But
in the reality of the third and second centuries BCE the non-use of MT was
not unexpected. The realm of MT influence may have been limited to
certain circles, and we do not know from which circles the Hebrew
manuscripts used for the translation were sent or brought to Egypt.
Clearly the circles or persons who sent or brought the manuscripts of the
Torah to Alexandria were not Eleazar the High Priest and the sages, as
narrated in the Epistle of Aristeas 176. Any High Priest would
undoubtedly have encouraged the use of MT for such an important
enterprise. Incidentally, the Epistle of Aristeas praises the qualities of the
translators as well as the external features of the scrolls, but says nothing
about their content.
Our point of departure is that the proto-Masoretic copies existed
already when the Greek translation was made. Several such copies were
indeed found at Qumran. In the case of Jeremiah, the MT form is extant
in 4QJer
a
, which is dated around 200 BCE. Why then was a copy of the
tradition of 4QJer
b,d
used for the LXX, and not its MT counterpart? Was
it preferred to MT because it was considered more ancient (which it
really was, in our view) or more authentic? Was that text possibly
accepted by specific circles as opposed to the MT version adopted in the
temple circles? The text used for the LXX was a good one, as opposed to
many of the carelessly written copies found at Qumran. It was not one of
the Palestinian vulgar copies involving much secondary editing such
as the SP group.
59
But it remains difficult to determine the background of
this text. At the same time, the choice of certain texts for the Greek
translation could not have been coincidental. After all, the LXX contains
important early and independent material.
The evidence discussed in the anthology Earliest Text of the Hebrew
Bible represents only some of the literary material reflected in the LXX.
One should therefore consider the totality of the LXX evidence. It would
be one-sided to consider only chronological factors, as was done in
several studies which suggest a Maccabean date for elements in MT, thus
explaining the background of the various redactional stages as
chronologically different. However, at the time of the translation, ancient
copies still circulated, while the edition of MT had already incorporated
editorial stages meant to replace these earlier texts. The assumption of a
Maccabean date of MT would explain several cases in which the LXX
antedated MT, but that solution seems to be unrealistic since several

59
Nevertheless, the Greek Torah contains a fair number of harmonizing readings in
small details, almost as many as the SP group; see chapter 19*.
16 CHAPTER ELEVEN
early (pre-Maccabean) MT manuscripts are known from Qumran.
Nevertheless, such a late date has been suggested for several biblical
books or parts of them, especially Psalms, without reference to the
LXX.
60
As for the LXX, on the basis of a single reading and a small group
of readings, Schenker dated the MT edition of 12 Kings to the period
between 250 and 130 BCE, probably closer to the later end of this spectrum
(see n. 14). According to Schenker, an equally late revision is found in
MT of 1 Kings 20:10-20.
61
Likewise, Lust dated the MT edition of Ezekiel
to the second century BCE, the time of Jonathan Maccabee.
62
Bhler notes
that the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the edition of MT in
Nehemiah 11 reflects the reality of the Maccabean times with regard to
the scope of Judea.
63
Likewise, in the case of the MT version of Joshua 20
differing redactionally from the LXX, Wellhausen and Cooke suggested
that the MT redaction was created after the time of the LXX.
64

While not trying to refute these specific Maccabean arguments in
detail, it seems that the basis for the Maccabean dating of MT is one-
sided, and that several details are debatable. At least in the case of
Jeremiah the chronological argument does not hold, and furthermore
one should be attentive to the textual forces in ancient Israel in the third-
second centuries BCE. At that time, the MT manuscripts were embraced
by certain circles only, while others used different, often older,
manuscripts.
65


60
For a discussion, see R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart/Berlin/
Cologne/Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1978) 1923.
61
Those verses mention groups of dancing men as well as King Davids dances. These
elements suited the Hellenistic culture, and were therefore omitted in MT, according to
Schenker, probably in the second century BCE.
62
Ezekiel 4 and 5 in Hebrew and in Greek, ETL 77 (2001) 13252 (1325). Lusts point
of departure is a comparison of the 390 years of punishment of MT in Ezek 4:4-6 (actually
390 + 40 = 430) and the 190 years of the LXX (= 150 years for the iniquity of Israel [v 4] + 40
for that of Judah). Lust considers the figure of 190 of the LXX as more original, while the
390 years of MT show its late date. According to the edition of MT, if the 390 years are to be
calculated from the date of the destruction of the first temple, together with the mentioned
40 years, we arrive at 157/156 BCE, during the era of Jonathan Maccabee. Lust does not
explain the exact relation between the figures of MT and the LXX.
63
D. Bhler, On the Relationship between Textual and Literary CriticismThe Two
Recensions of the Book of Ezra: Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX), in Earliest Text of the
Hebrew Bible, 3550 (48).
64
J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten
Testaments (4th ed.; repr. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963) 132; G. A. Cooke, The Book of Joshua
(Cambridge: University Press, 1918) ad loc. See also A. Rof, Joshua 20: Historico-Literary
Criticism Illustrated, in Tigay, Empirical Models, 13147, esp. 145.
65
My own intuition tells me that more often than not the LXX reflects an earlier stage
than MT both in the literary shape of the biblical books and in small details. Thus also
Barthlemy, Lenchevtrement, 39: Souvent cet tat [scil. ... littraire autonome et
distinct du TM] est plus ancien que celui quoffre le TM. Parfois il est plus rcent. Mais cela
LARGE-SCALE DIFFERENCES 17
5. Conclusions
a. An open approach was advocated in the discussion of the large-
scale differences between MT S T V and the LXX, involving both Greek
segments which presumably preceded the literary stage included in MT
and those which were created subsequently. It was found that a
substantive number of such differences preceded the MT edition.
b. When comparing the LXX evidence with that of the other sources,
we found that beyond MT, the LXX is the single most important source
preserving redactionally different material relevant to the literary
analysis of the Bible, often earlier than MT. The other biblical translations
preserve no such material, while a limited amount of redactionally
different material has been preserved in some Hebrew biblical texts from
Qumran, especially in early texts.
c. The preservation of redactionally different material in the LXX was
ascribed to two factors or a combination of them: (1) the idiosyncratic
nature of the Hebrew manuscripts used for the translation not shared by
the circles which embraced MT; and (2) the relatively early date of the
translation enterprise (275150 BCE), involving still earlier Hebrew
manuscripts which could reflect vestiges of earlier editorial stages of the
biblical books.

These factors may explain the special nature of the LXX in
different ways, but sometimes they need to be combined. For example,
the texts that circulated at the time of the Greek translation beyond the
circles which embraced MT may have contained very early elements.
d. In view of the above, I allow myself to retain reservations
regarding the possibility of a Maccabean date for details in MT. Such a
dating is based only on the chronological argument, and not on
recognition of the textual situation in ancient Israel, where early texts
could have been circulating for decades or centuries outside the temple
circles.


ne saurait amener prfrer lun lautre. LXX et TM mritent dtre traits comme deux
formes bibliques traditionelles dont chacune doit tre interprte pour elle-mme.




CHAPTER TWELVE

THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW/ARAMAIC AND GREEK BIBLE USED
IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES
I. Hebrew/Aramaic Texts

This study focuses on the biblical texts used in the ancient synagogues in
the original languages and in Greek translation. We are faced with
enigmas at all levels because of our fragmentary information regarding
the ancient synagogues
1
their social, religious, and physical structure
let alone the text of the Bible used in these institutions. Since the data
regarding the institutions is insufficient, it would therefore appear that
inadequate evidence is available for an analysis of the topic under
investigation, and that we would have to learn from inference only,
especially from rabbinic and other sources with regard to the reading
from the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bibles. However, this is one of
those fortuitous situations in which archeology comes to our aid, since
two biblical scrolls were found at the site of a synagogue, namely under
the floor of the Masada synagogue.
2
We are even more fortunate, since it
appears that the evidence unearthed at Masada corroborates other
archeological and literary evidence regarding the use of biblical texts. We
first turn to the evidence from Masada, and afterwards to some general
observations about the use of Scripture in the original languages.

1
See especially the questions raised by L. I. Levine, The First-Century Synagogue, New
Perspectives, STK 77 (2001) 2230 and idem, The Ancient Synagogue.
2
The burned remains of scrolls in the Ein Geddi synagogue derive from a later period
(probably 250300 CE); see the description by D. Barag in The New Encyclopedia of the
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (ed. E. Stern; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, Ministry of Defense, Carta, 1992) 1200 (with bibliography). The definition of the
early synagogue is not expanded to include houses of prayer in general, so that the
buildings of the Qumran community are excluded from the analysis. While it is unknown
where in Qumran communal prayers took place, such prayers were held in Qumran and
Scripture was read at such occasions. However, we have no way to know which of the
Scripture texts found in Qumran was read at such occasions. See further below. On the
other hand, Binders detailed analysis suggests that Qumran may be considered a
synagogue, in the main because the holy places of the Essenes (not necessarily that of the
Qumran community!) were called synagogai by Philo, Prob. 8083, and because he identified
certain loci as rooms for communal prayers. See D. D. Binder, Into the Temple CourtsThe
Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBLDS 169; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999)
45368.
2 CHAPTER TWELVE
1. The Evidence from Masada
Two scrolls were found under the floor of the Zealot synagogue (room
1043):
MasDeut (1043/14) [Mas 1c]
MasEzek (10432220) [Mas 1d]
The archeological evidence is described by Yadin, who noted that the
scrolls were found in two pits carefully dug under the floor of the
synagogue. The scrolls were deposited at the bottom of the pits which
afterwards were filled with earth and stones.
3
A more detailed
description is provided by Netzer.
4
The scrolls were buried under the
ground, and hence most scholars presume this burial to be sound
evidence for the practice of a genizah. However, Thiede suggested that at
an earlier stage the scrolls were located in a room behind the aron ha-
qodesh,
5
and that when the Romans approached, the scrolls were hastily
buried under the floor, and when the Romans arrived and found the
synagogue, they burnt furniture and other objects and threw them into
that room. Although the details in this description may be hypothetical,
it is not impossible that the burial does not necessarily point to a genizah,
and that the scrolls were indeed buried for safekeeping against
destruction by the Romans. In any event, the assumption that this was a
genizah is not crucial to our analysis of the texts, and it is more important
to stress that the building was a synagogue.
Beyond these considerations, the only solid piece of evidence
concerning the Masada fragments is that two scrolls of Deuteronomy
and Ezekiel were buried under the floor of the synagogue. Why these
specific scrolls, and not others, were buried there remains unknown
since only fragments of the scrolls have been preserved. Possibly these
scrolls, or segments of them, were damaged at an earlier stage or were
otherwise deemed unfit for public reading, rendering their religious
storage in a special burial place (genizah) mandatory. The Zealots
probably buried these scrolls during their sojourn at Masada (thus
providing us with a terminus ante quem for the copying and storage,
namely 73 CE). The burial in separate pits probably shows that the scrolls
were discarded at different times. Note that the scrolls probably
represented two individual books, and were not segments of larger
scrolls. That is, the Deuteronomy scroll probably was not part of a larger

3
Y. Yadin, Masada, Herods Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand (London: Weidenfeld and
Nickolson, 1966) 187.
4
E. Netzer, Masada III, 407 ff.
5
C. P. Thiede, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity (Oxford: Lion
Publications, 2000) 74.
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 3
Torah scroll, and the Ezekiel scroll did not contain all of the Later
Prophets. If the scrolls had been larger, it is probable that some
additional fragments would have been preserved.
6
The Deuteronomy
scroll contains the very end of the book (Deut 32:46-47; 33:17-24; 34:2-6),
as well as an attached uninscribed handle sheet, and it is not impossible
that the last sheet(s) were damaged due to excessive use (cf. the re-inking
of the last column of 1QIsa
a
), and hence was/were placed in storage
without the remainder of the book.
The two scrolls found in an ancient synagogue provide some
information about texts used in that institution. It would be unusual to
assume that these scrolls were not used in the synagogue itself, and had
only been brought there in order to be buried. Such an assumption could
be made about a larger community such as a city, but would not be in
order for Masada. The following details are known about the contents
and other features of the scrolls found under the synagogue at Masada:
a. The text of the two scrolls is identical to that of the medieval MT,
and much closer to the medieval text than the proto-Masoretic Qumran
scrolls.
7
This feature pertains also to the other five biblical scrolls found
elsewhere at three different locations at Masada. The scrolls differ from
the medieval manuscripts no more than the latter differ among
themselves.
b. With regard to their physical features, the two Masada scrolls were
probably luxury scrolls.
8
The main distinguishing features of luxury
scrolls are their large top and bottom margins, always more than 3.0 cm,
and sometimes extending to 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0 cm. Thus the top margin of
the Ezekiel scroll measures 3.0 cm, while that of the Deuteronomy scroll
is 3.4 cm. Also the only other Masada scroll for which these data are
known, MasPs
a
, has a top margin of 2.4 cm and a bottom margin of 3.0
cm. Luxury scrolls also usually have a large number of lines, 42 in the
cases of MasDeut and MasEzek, and 29 in the case of MasPs
a
.

c. As a rule, de luxe scrolls are characterized by a small degree of
scribal intervention, as may be expected from scrolls that usually were
carefully written. The fewer mistakes that are made, the fewer the
corrections needed. However, scribal intervention pertains not only to
the correction of mistakes, but also to the insertion of scribal changes.

6
Several haftarot are read from Ezekiel, but the burying of an Ezekiel scroll under the
floor in the Masada synagogue is not necessarily connected to the reading cycle.
7
For a detailed analysis of the Masada texts, see S. Talmon in Masada VI, 149; E. Tov, A
Qumran Origin for the Masada Non-biblical Texts? DSD 7 (2000) 5773, especially the
Appendix.
8
See chapter 10*, 3 and Scribal Practices, 1259.
4 CHAPTER TWELVE
The number of scribal interventions in MasEzek is one per 18 lines, in
MasDeut one per 17 lines, and in MasPs
a
one per 85 lines.
9

In all three criteria, the characteristics of the luxury biblical scrolls
have been prescribed in rabbinic literature for the copying of Scripture
scrolls, with regard to the size of the top and bottom margins,
10
the
paucity of scribal intervention,
11
and precision in the copying (see
below).
At the beginning of this study, attention was drawn to the physical
evidence for specific biblical scrolls found in a synagogue environment.
We now turn to the other archeological and literary evidence for the use
of specific biblical texts in the synagogue. We will not dwell on the more
general question of evidence for reading from Scripture in the original
languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, in religious gatherings. It seems to us
that this question has been sufficiently treated, especially in a study by
Schiffman,
12
and previously also by Perrot,
13
Levine,
14
and Safrai, the
latter with regard to rabbinic sources.
15
Passages in Philo, Josephus,
16

and the NT (Luke 4:16-21; Acts 15:21; 17:1) refer to the regular reading of
Scripture in synagogues in the original languages as well as in
translation. The reading from the Torah in a religious gathering is
mentioned also in the writings of the Qumran community. It is unknown
how this reading took place, but 4QDamascus Document clearly refers to
the public reading from Scripture
17
and 4QHalakha A (4Q251) 1 5

9
See chapter 9, 3 and chapter 10, 3.
10
See Scribal Practices, xxx-xxx.
11
See Scribal Practices, xxx-xxx.
12
L. Schiffman, The Early History of Public Reading of the Torah, in Jews, Christians,
and Polytheists in the Ancient SynagogueCultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period
(ed. S. Fine; London/New York: Routledge, 1999) 4456.
13
C. Perrot, The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue, in Mikra, 13759;
idem, Luc 4:16-30 et la lecture biblique dans lancienne synagogue, in Exgse biblique et
Judaisme (ed. J. E. Mnard; Strasbourg, 1973) 17086.
14
L. I. Levine, The Development of Synagogue Liturgy in Late Antiquity, in Galilee
through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures (ed. E. M. Meyers; Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1999) 12344; idem, The Ancient Synagogue, 13543.
15
S. Safrai, The Jewish People in the First CenturyHistorical Geography, Political History,
Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; CRINT, Section
One, Volume Two; AssenAmsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976) 90844, 94570. For the reading
cycles, see especially J. Mann and I. Sonne, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old
Synagogue: A Study in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, vols. 12 (Cincinnati:
Mann-Sonne Publ. Committee, 19401966).
16
For both authors, see the analysis by Schiffman, Early History, 468 (n. 12 above).
17
The combination of several fragments of parallel manuscripts, as reconstructed by J.
M. Baumgarten, DJD XVIII provides the full picture. See 4QD
a
(4Q266) 5 ii 13, 4QD
b

(4Q267) 5 ii 35, 4QpapD
h
(4Q273) 2 1 and the analysis of Schiffman, Early History, 456.
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 5
mentions such reading on the Sabbath, while 1QS VI 68 is less specific.
18

That scrolls were stored in the synagogue, first in an adjacent room and
later in a special niche or in an aron ha-qodesh, is established by an early
source such as Luke 4:16-21. According to these verses, Jesus entered the
synagogue in Nazareth, a scroll of Isaiah was handed to him, unrolled it,
read the text, and rolled the scroll back after use.
19
Storage of such scrolls
in the synagogue is also mentioned in rabbinic literature
20
and is
established for several synagogues starting with the synagogue of Dura
Europos in the mid-second century CE and that of Khirbet Shema in the
mid-third century.
21

2. Indirect Evidence about Specific Texts Used in the Synagogue
The two scrolls found under the floor of the synagogue at Masada are
identical to the medieval MT, and hence were forerunners of that text.
The external features of these scrolls are those of luxury editions. When
assessing now the other manuscript finds from the Judean Desert
together with some literary evidence, we will better understand the
textual situation in Israel around the turn of the era.
The only location at which ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls have
been found in Israel is the Judean Desert. This is a small region, but we
believe that the corpora found there include texts deriving from other
places within Israel, thus presenting us with a clear picture of the texts
used in the whole country, even though a judgment on the origin of each
individual scroll remains hypothetical. Some of the Qumran scrolls were
close to the medieval MT, although almost never as close as the scrolls
from the other sites in the Judean Desert. These proto-Masoretic scrolls,
forming the largest group at Qumran, must have been based on the texts
that were identical to the medieval text such as found at Masada and
other sites. Of the other texts found at Qumran, some had close
connections to the Hebrew source of the LXX, while others were of the
vulgar type, often written in a very free orthography and often freely
editing the biblical text. As far as we know, none of these groups of texts

18
For an analysis, see M. Fishbane, Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at
Qumran, Mikra, 33977.
19
From several ancient sources it is also evident that synagogues contained a collection
of Scripture scrolls in a special place (aron ha-qodesh), while the name library would
probably be a little exaggerated for such a collection. Likewise, the implication of Acts
17:10-11 is that Scripture scrolls were stored in the synagogue. Y. Meg. 3:73d specifically
mentions the keeping of separate scrolls of the Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa in
synagogues.
20
See Safrai, The Jewish People, esp. 92733, 940 (see n. 15 above).
21
For the evidence and an analysis, see E. M. Meyers, The Torah Shrine in the Ancient
Synagogue, in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists, 20123 (see n. 12 above).
6 CHAPTER TWELVE
had a close connection to the texts used in the synagogue. Nor did the
Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX derive from temple circles, even though the
Epistle of Aristeas 176 stated that Eleazar the High Priest himself sent
the Torah scroll to Egypt for the purpose of translation.
The texts that are relevant to the present analysis are those that are
close to the medieval MT. It is strange that a discussion of ancient texts
resorts to medieval sources, but the nature of the medieval copies helps
us in the characterization of the ancient texts. Focusing on the
consonantal framework of the medieval text, MT, and disregarding the
medieval elements of that text (vowels, accents, Masorah), we note that
MT was the only one used in earlier centuries in rabbinic circles. This is
the only text that is quoted in rabbinic literature, and is used for the
various targumim. Also, the extra-textual details of MT discussed in
rabbinic literature, such as the open and closed sections, scribal
notations, versification, as well as reading from Scripture, refer exactly to
this text. It is therefore assumed that the text that was carefully
transmitted through the centuries was previously embraced by rabbinic
circles. We would even go so far as to assume that these texts were based
on the scroll found in the temple court, but more on this below. First we
focus on the evidence from the Judean Desert.
The texts from sites other than Qumran published in the 1990s
together with Murabbaat texts edited in DJD II,
22
show beyond doubt
that we should posit two types of Masoretic scrolls, an inner circle of
proto-rabbinic scrolls that agree precisely with codex L and a second
circle of scrolls that are very similar to it. (Codex L [Leningrad codex
B19
A
] is chosen as the best complete representative of the medieval text.)
Most scrolls found at Qumran belong to this second circle, with only a
few texts belonging to the first group.
23
On the other hand, all the scrolls
found at sites in the Judean Desert other than Qumran belong to the
inner circle of proto-rabbinic scrolls. Thus, the 23 texts that were found at
these sites
24
agree with L to such an extent that they are actually identical
with that manuscript. The only differences between the proto-Masoretic
scrolls from various sites in the Judean Desert and L pertain to a few
details in orthography, minute details in content, paragraphing, and the
layout of some individual Psalms. At the same time, these texts always
agree with L against the LXX.
The differences between these scrolls and L are negligible, and in fact
their nature resembles the internal differences between the medieval

22
For a list of the publications of all the biblical texts, see chapter 10*, 1.
23
See chapter 4*, B.
24
For a list, see chapter 10*, A.
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 7
manuscripts themselves.

Accordingly, the small degree of divergence
between L and texts from the Judean Desert, mainly the texts outside
Qumran, allows us to regard these texts as belonging to the same group,
or in our terminology, the inner circle of proto-rabbinic texts.
25
This inner
circle contained the consonantal framework of MT one thousand years or
more before the time of the Masorah codices. This applies also to the
second circle of Masoretic texts
The texts of the inner circle of proto-rabbinic texts are usually written
in de luxe editions, and they display very little or no scribal intervention.
In both parameters, these texts follow the instructions given in rabbinic
literature.
The second circle of ancient scrolls is that of most proto-Masoretic
texts found at Qumran. These scrolls deviate more from L than the
scrolls of the first circle, they are less precise, reflect more scribal
intervention, and usually are not written in de luxe editions.
We now turn to some thoughts concerning the background of the two
groups of scrolls, trying to connect them to data known from rabbinic
sources.
The text which is traditionally known as the medieval MT, and earlier
representations of which were found in the Judean Desert, was embraced
by the spiritual leadership of Jerusalem. It is therefore often called the
proto-rabbinic
26
or proto-Masoretic Text.
All the copies of the proto-rabbinic group of texts such as those found
at all sites in the Judean Desert excluding Qumran were to all intents and
purposes identical, or at least an attempt was made to make them so as
shown by the precision in copying.
27

In retrospect, it was probably to be expected that the people who left
the Hebrew scrolls behind in the Judean Desert possessed biblical scrolls
that closely reflected the instructions of the Jerusalem spiritual center for

25
Some medieval manuscripts are almost identical to one another in their consonantal
text, such as L and the Aleppo Codex. However, other codices from Leningrad and
elsewhere are more widely divergent from these two choice manuscripts. Thus the degree
of divergence between the Tiberian and Babylonian codices resembles that between the
Judean Desert scrolls and any medieval source. Young, Stabilization provides statistics
that highlight the large amount of agreement between the medieval manuscripts of MT and
the Masada manuscripts as opposed to a smaller amount of such agreement with the proto-
MT scrolls from Qumran.
26
See chapter 10*, n. 57.
27
The agreements of these ancient scrolls with L pertain to the smallest details. Thus the
agreement between MasLev
b
and the medieval text pertains even to the intricacies of
orthography, including details in which the orthography ad loc. goes against the
conventions elsewhere in the book such as the defective m[ymt in Lev 9:2, 3 (col. I 11, 13)
and the defective hiphil form wbrqyw in Lev 9:9 (col. I 21). This has been pointed out in detail
by Talmon in his edition of these texts (see n. 7).
8 CHAPTER TWELVE
the writing of Scripture scrolls. This characterization which applies to the
rebels of Masada and the freedom fighters of Bar Kochba was stressed in
1956 by Greenberg for the texts from Murabbaat on the basis of the
scanty evidence then available: ... since the spiritual leaders of this
Second Revolt against Rome (132135) were some of the most eminent
Rabbis, there is no question as to the orthodoxy of this group.
28
Some
scholars even stress the priestly influence on the leadership of the
revolt.
29

To find ancient and medieval identical textual evidence is not very
common, but it represents an unusual situation requiring explanation.
We therefore turn to the question of how such textual identity was
achieved, among the scrolls from the Judean Desert internally, between
these scrolls and the temple copies, and these scrolls and the medieval
manuscripts. The logic prevailing today could not have been different
from that of ancient times. It seems to us that identity between two or
more texts could have been achieved only if all of them were copied from a
single source, in this case (a) master copy (copies) located in a central place,
until 70 CE probably in the temple, and subsequently in another central
place (Jamnia?). The textual unity described above has to start
somewhere and the assumption of master copies is therefore necessary.
30

The depositing and preserving of holy books in the temple is parallel to
the modern concept of publication as implied by various references in
rabbinic literature,
31
and can be paralleled by evidence from ancient
Egypt, Greece, and Rome.
32


28
M. Greenberg, The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible, JAOS 76 (1956)
15767, esp. 165.
29
See D. Goodblatt, The Title Nasi and the Ideological Background of the Second
Revolt, in The Bar Kokhva RevoltA New Approach (ed. A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport;
Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984) 11332.
30
This suggestion was already voiced by Krauss, Talmudische Archologie, III.171 and
Lieberman, Hellenism, 22.
31
Thus Lieberman, Hellenism, 857; M. Kister, In the Margin of Ben-Sira, Leshonenu 47
(19821983) 1345 (Heb.); M. A. Friedman, Publication of a Book by Depositing it in a
Sanctuary: On the Phrase Written and Deposited, Leshonenu 4849 (19831984) 4952
(Heb.); M. Kister, Additions to the Article arys b rps ylwb, Leshonenu 53 (19881989) 36
53 (Heb.). The Talmudic phrase used for this action is jnwmw bwtk and similar phrases, for
which cf. also the terms used by Josephus as quoted below. The parallels adduced by
Friedman include references to the temple and the hrz[.
32
See J. Leipoldt and S. Morenz, Heilige SchriftenBetrachtungen zur Religionsgeschichte
der antiken Mittelmeerwelt (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1953) 8991, 16571; Beckwith, Old
Testament Canon, 8086; M. Haran, Scribal Workmanship in Biblical TimesThe Scrolls
and the Writing Implements, Tarbiz 50 (19801981) 7071 (Heb.). These parallels in
external sources were stressed much in Kutschers argumentation in favor of the
assumption of master scrolls in the temple: Kutscher, Language, 82.
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 9
This is a mere hypothesis, but hopefully we found a missing link by
reinterpreting passages in rabbinic literature referring to ancient copies.

Rabbinic sources deriving from a period later than the Judean Desert
evidence provide descriptions of earlier textual procedures, which were
partly also their own. In these descriptions we read about a master copy
of the Torah found in the temple court, and about scrolls copied from or
revised according to that copy. The term sefer ha-azara (hrz[h rps, with a
variant arz[ rps, the book of Ezra)
33
probably referred only to the
Torah,
34
but it stands to reason that the other Scripture books were also
found in the temple. Thus, according to m. Yom. 1.6 the elders of the
priesthood read to the High Priest on the eve of the Day of Atonement
from Job, Ezra, Chronicles, and Daniel.
35
Incidentally, rabbinic literature
usually speaks of a single scroll of the Torah in the temple court, while a
baraita mentions the three scrolls found in the temple,
36
but even this
source implies the creation of a single source on the basis of the majority
readings among the three scrolls, each time involving a different type of
majority.
37
These Scripture books, together with the master copy of the
Torah were probably part of a temple library.
38
It should be admitted
that the evidence for the existence of the books of the Prophets and
Hagiographa in the temple is based on limited evidence, more so on
inference relating to the unified textual tradition of these books. Little is

33
See m. Kel. 15.6; m. Moed Qatan 3.4; b. b. Bat. 14b; b. Yoma 69a-b; y. San. 2.20c. This
variant, occurring among other things in m. Moed Qatan, is considered the original reading
by Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, 84, 102.
34
This is evident from the discussion in b. b. Bat. 14b and from the names of the three
scrolls found in the temple court relating to passages in the Torah (see the next note).
35
Josephus speaks three times of ancient writings laid up/deposited in the temple
(Ant. III 38 and similarly elsewhere), referring to pericopes in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and
Joshua. However, pace Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, 84 it seems that Josephus did not
refer to the biblical books, but to additional ancient writings. See Ant. III 38 (Exod 17:6), IV
302304 (Deuteronomy 32) and V 61 (Josh 10:12-14).
36
See y. Taan. 4.68a (cf. Sof 6.4 and Abot de R. Nathan B chapter 46). For a thorough
analysis, see S. Talmon, The Three Scrolls of the Law That Were Found in the Temple
Court, Textus 2 (1962) 1427. Earlier studies are: J. Z. Lauterbach, The Three Books Found
in the Temple at Jerusalem, JQR 8 (19171918) 385423; S. Zeitlin, Were There Three
Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah? JQR 56 (1966) 26972. Both studies were reprinted in The
Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew BibleAn Introductory Reader (ed. S. Z. Leiman; New York:
Ktav, 1974).
37
The problems of the unclear depiction of the procedures followed were discussed at
length by Talmon (see previous note) within the framework of his own explanations.
38
Thus already Blau, Studien, 11011. The founding of such a library by Nehemiah was
mentioned in 2 Macc 2:13-15 (books concerning kings, prophets, David, and royal
letters). Josephus mentions a temple library on various occasions (e.g., Ant. III 38; IV 303; V
61), among other things with regard to the copy of the Jewish Law taken as spoil by Titus
(B.J. VII 150, 162). For further references and an analysis, see A. F. J. Klijn, A Library of
Scriptures in Jerusalem? TU 124 (1977) 26572.
10 CHAPTER TWELVE
known about these temple scrolls,
39
and they cannot be dated.
40

Nevertheless, the little that is known about them is consonant with the
texts from the Judean Desert (except for Qumran). We suggest that the
internal identity of this group of texts, subsequently perpetuated in the
medieval tradition,
41
was created because they were copied from or
revised according to the master copies in the temple. It also seems that
the type of scrolls found in the Judean Desert
42
is referred to in rabbinic
literature.
We surmise that a carefully copied biblical text such as found in the
Judean Desert is mentioned in rabbinic literature as a corrected scroll,
sefer muggah.
43
The temple employed professional maggihim, correctors
or revisers, whose task it was to safeguard precision in the copying of
the text: Maggihim of books in Jerusalem received their fees from the
temple funds (b. Ketub. 106a).
44
This description implies that the
correcting procedure based on the master copy in the temple was
financed from the temple resources which thus provided an imprimatur.
This was the only way to safeguard the proper distribution of precise
copies of Scripture. Safrai even suggests that the pilgrims who came to
Jerusalem had their biblical texts corrected by the temple scribes.
45
These

39
Gordis, Biblical Text, xl, on the other hand, assumes that anonymous scholars chose
a precise manuscript and deposited it in the temple between the accession of Simon the
Maccabean (142 B.C.E.) and the destruction of the Temple (70 C.E.).
40
The fact that the spelling and language of the Torah and Former Prophets were not
modernized when at later times new practices were in vogue, as witnessed by parallel
segments in Chronicles, may be used as proof that the exact shape of the Torah and Former
Prophets was not changed after the time of the Chronicler. A case in point may be the name
of Jerusalem, written without a yod in the early books and four times with a yod in
Chronicles, once in Jeremiah and once in Esther, and thus as a rule in the nonbiblical
Qumran scrolls. Nevertheless, the spelling of the earlier books was not modernized. See
Kutscher, Language, 5.
41
This point was stressed by Gordis, Biblical Text, xxvii who suggested that it,
therefore, seems reasonable to identify the hrz[h rps (or arz[ rps) with the ancient, highly
regarded manuscript which became the archetype for all accurate codices.
42
It is not impossible that these texts were official texts, possibly from synagogues,
brought by fugitives to the Judean Desert during the first and second revolt (I owe this
suggestion to R. Deines, Tbingen).
43
For an initial analysis of the sefer muggah, see Blau, Studien, 97111; Krauss,
Talmudische Archologie, III.17071.
44
hklh tmwrtm rk ylfwn wyh ylwryb yrps yhygm. Y. Sheq. 4.48a has an interesting variant
to this text, viz. hklh tmwrtm rk ylfwn wyh hrz[h rps yhygm, which should probably be
translated as the revisers of <Bible scrolls according to> the scroll of the temple court ...
(similarly Gordis, Biblical Text, xxvii).
45
S. Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Heb.; Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1965)
203 = idem, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (Forschungen zum Jdisch-
Christlichen Dialog 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985) 262. Safrais views are based upon m.
Moed Qatan 3.4 according to Rashis interpretation (on the middle days of the three
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 11
scrolls must have been used everywhere in Israel,
46
for public reading as
well as for instruction, public and private, as suggested by b. Pesah . 112a,
where one of the five items R. Akiba urged his student R. Simeon was:
and when you teach your son, teach him from a corrected scroll.
Another such precise copy was the scroll of the king, which
accompanied the king everywhere. y. San. 2.20c and Sifre Deuteronomy
160
47
tell us that this scroll was corrected from to the copy in the temple
court in accordance with the court of seventy-one members.
48
At the
same time, B. Ketub. 19b mentions a sefer she-no muggah, a book that is
not corrected which one could not have in his house any longer than
thirty days.
49 50

On purely abstract grounds it was suggested above that textual
identity could have been achieved only by copying from a single source,
and such a procedure is actually mentioned in rabbinic literature. The
copying from or correcting according to a master copy ensured that its
text was perpetuated in the precise copies used everywhere in Israel,
among other things in the Judean Desert texts, in quotations in rabbinic
literature, most Targumim, and subsequently in the medieval Masoretic
manuscripts. It is therefore suggested to identify the precise proto-Masoretic
texts found in the Judean Desert as some of the corrected scrolls mentioned
in rabbinic literature.
The various pieces of this description are supported by negative and
positive evidence at Qumran: the assumed corrected copies were
found at various places in the Judean Desert, but not at Qumran. The
Qumranites were not bound by the copying practices of the temple
circles, as is clear not only from the absence of these copies from
Qumran, but also from the textual variety and a large number of

regalim one is not allowed to correct even one single letter, not even from the scroll in the
temple court).
46
Similarly S. Safrai in Safrai, The Jewish People [see n. 15] 905: Problems related to the
transmission of the text and authenticity of various books of the Bible were examined in the
Temple; copyists and correctors sat in the Temple and worked to supply books to those who
needed them in the land of Israel and in the Diaspora <my italics, E. T.>. There was a bible in the
Temple called the book of the court on the basis of which books were corrected.
47
Ed. Finkelstein (New York/Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993) 211. The
complicated description of the correcting procedure in t. San. 4.7 is probably based on the
wording in y. San.
48
In another context, we read in y. Ket. 2.26b: a corrected scroll like those which are
designated as the books of Assi. Lieberman, Hellenism, 25 adds: From the context it is
obvious that these corrected books were written by Assi himself whose handwriting was
well known. For a discussion of the scroll of the king, see Blau, Studien, 1067.
49
Interestingly enough, Rashi explains this book as not only containing the Torah, but
any part of Scripture.
12 CHAPTER TWELVE
corrections and new orthographical and morphological practices
reflected in the Qumran texts probably produced by a scribal school
active in Qumran and other places. At the same time, a sizeable number
of a second circle of proto-MT texts like 1QIsa
a
, 4QSam
b
, 4QJer
a
, 4QJer
c

was found at Qumran. These scrolls resemble the nature of the
corrected copies with regard to their closeness to the medieval MT, but
they were less precise. Possibly they were copied from the corrected
copies, probably not in Qumran.
51

In our description of the temple practices, we do not know when
copies were first deposited in the temple and when they became model
copies.
52
One possibility would be that as late as the early Hasmonean
period a master copy was instituted in the temple court because of the
extant textual plurality, but neither an early nor a late date can be
supported convincingly. Also the opposite idea that the master copy
resulted from a procedure of standardization cannot be supported either,
not only because in our view such a conscious procedure never took
place,
53
but also because different Bible texts continued to coexist with
the master codex. Over the course of a long time there must have been an
approach of textual rigidity in the temple and its circle of influence,
while in other circles textual freedom was the rule.
Central to our description is the idea that the temple had sufficient
authority over parts of the population to impose upon them a specific
form of the Bible text. This authority did not pertain to all of Israel, for
other texts continued to be in use. These texts, such as ancient texts
similar to the Vorlage of the LXX, a group of texts similar to the SP, and
imprecise texts such as the Torah of Rabbi Meir and several Qumran
texts, circulated alongside the corrected copies.
Like Lieberman, we assign a central task to the temple in the diffusion
of corrected copies of Scripture. But in our model, one central text was in
the temple, and the corrected copies circulated in Israel, while according
to Lieberman the precise copies as a group were located in the temple.
Liebermans model, written before the scrolls were known, is discussed

52
It is unclear when a copy of the Torah is first attested to in the temple. Blau, Studien,
99 goes back as far as the period of Hezekiah when according to 2 Chr 19:8 a copy of the
Torah guided priests, Levites, and others. However, for this early period the evidence is
unclear, while it is more stable for the period of Josiah when according to 2 Kings 22 and 2
Chronicles 34 a book of the Torah was found in the temple. At the same time, the existence
of a Torah scroll in the temple in 2 Kgs 22:8 does not necessarily prove the existence of a
collection of books (library) in the seventh century BCE pace A. Lemaire, Writing and
Writing Materials, ABD 6 (1992) 9991008 (1005).
53
Thus also A. S. van der Woude, Pluriformiteit en uniformiteitOverwegingen betreffende
de tekstoverlevering van het Oude Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1992).
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 13
here briefly as it has been influential on the scholarly discussion.
54
On
the basis of Greek evidence from Hellenistic Alexandria, Lieberman
distinguished between inferior (faulovtera) biblical texts used by the
people, popular texts used in many synagogues as well as in schools
and bat midrash (koinovtera or vulgata, widely circulated), and exact
scrolls (hjkribwmev na) in the temple. This model is based solely on
external parallels and not on any extant Hebrew texts (except for the so-
called Severus scroll or book of R. Meir, some readings of which are
quoted in rabbinic literature, which Lieberman considers to be
representative of the vulgata).
55
Pace Lieberman it stands to reason that in
synagogues
56
and bate midrash use was made only of corrected scrolls.
The aforementioned descriptions in rabbinic literature point in this
direction
57
and furthermore, various discussions in rabbinic literature
revolve around the exact spelling of words, such as in b. Sukk. 6b, various
examples in b. Sanh. 4a, and b. Menah. 93b (Lev 16:21 wdy/wydy), all of
which would require the availability of exact copies.
58
This assumption is
also supported by the two precise scrolls found under the floor of the
synagogue at Masada. Therefore, Liebermans view that the precise
scrolls were found only in the temple is unlikely.
59
Furthermore, it seems
that the evidence cannot be fitted into a three-fold division. Temple
circles and rabbinic Judaism probably thought only in terms of two
groups, namely exact scrolls (corrected scrolls) written according to
rabbinic instructions and all other scrolls. The people probably did not
think at all in terms of textual groups, as evidenced, for example, by the
variety of texts held at Qumran. Modern scholars will find it difficult to

54
Lieberman, Hellenism, 227. The second edition of this chapter (1962) did not revise
the first edition of 1950.
55
By the same token, this text may be described as inferior because of its many
phonetic mistakes.
56
Liebermans views on the type of Bible text used in synagogues are unclear. On p. 22
he says that the popular Bible texts were used in many synagogues and in the schools.
But on p. 26 he states: It seems likely that they used for the same purpose [viz., rabbinic
exegesis] the current vulgar text, although they officially recognized the Temple copy of the
Bible as the only genuine one for the use in the synagogue service. Lieberman does not
state how this official text was introduced to the synagogues. He could not have referred to
the precise copies, as these were described on p. 22 as the copies of the temple.
57
See the aforementioned quotation from b. Pesah. 112a.
58
Much material has been collected by Y. Y. Yellin, Hdqdwq kyswd bhlkh (Jerusalem:
Mossad Harav Kook, 1973) 33656.
59
According to Talmon, Three Scrolls, 14 (n. 36 above), Lieberman was of the view
that only books of the first category were considered suitable for the public reading in the
synagogue, but this description does not represent what Lieberman, Hellenism, 22 said.
14 CHAPTER TWELVE
divide the known evidence into three different groups, since
Liebermans model is both deficient
60
and excessive.
61

Finally, the evidence of the tefillin from the Judean Desert supports
our thesis. The majority of the tefillin found at Qumran, written in the
Qumran scribal practice, contain combinations of the four sections
prescribed in rabbinic literature and additional ones, among them the
Decalogue and Deuteronomy 32, while some contained only sections not
prescribed by the rabbis.
62
At the same time, a minority of tefillin found
at Qumran, written in the orthography of MT, reflect the prescriptions of
the rabbis. While the Qumran evidence is divided, mainly pointing to
non-rabbinic systems, the tefillin from other sites in the Judean Desert
only reflect the rabbinic instructions, thus further underlining the
connection between these sites and the Jerusalem center.
In sum:
a. Two groups of proto-MT scrolls are distinguished:
The texts found in sites in the Judean Desert other than Qumran
belong to the same family as the Masoretic medieval texts. This tradition
is reflected also in the biblical quotations in rabbinic literature, as well as
in most Targumim. These scrolls are therefore considered as the inner
circle of the proto-MT family. The link between these sites and the
Jerusalem center is further underlined by the evidence of the tefillin.
Similar texts from Qumran deviate from the medieval tradition in
some details, they are less precise, and they do not conform with the
rabbinic instructions for writing Scripture scrolls in technical details.
These scrolls belong to the second circle of proto-MT scrolls.
b. The rebels of Masada and the freedom fighters of Bar Kochba
possessed Hebrew and Greek biblical scrolls that closely reflect the
instructions of the Jerusalem spiritual center, as expected, since they
were influenced by them also in other ways.
c. Identity between two or more texts could have been achieved only
if all of them were copied from a single scroll, probably the master copy
of each biblical book as preserved in the temple until 70 CE.
d. The carefully copied identical biblical texts found in the Judean
Desert probably belong to a group that is mentioned in rabbinic
literature as corrected scrolls. These texts, which must have been

60
The model has no room for early precise texts different from MT like 4QJer
b,d
. These
are also exact scrolls, but for the temple circles, which adhered only to the proto-Masoretic
texts, these scrolls were not acceptable.
61
It seems that the distinction between inferior and popular scrolls is unrealistic, both
with regard to the available evidence and the Sitz im Leben of these texts.
62
For an analysis, see chapter 4* and Scribal Practices 27071.
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 15
extant in various places in Israel, were copied from or corrected
according to the master copies found in the temple court.
To these conclusions, two remarks are added:
a. The analysis is based on rabbinic sources, but even if these sources
are conceived of as tendentious or irrelevant,
63
most of our textual
assumptions are still valid. For the unusual identity between the ancient
and medieval sources of MT remains a given probably to be explained
through the assumption of a master copy and careful copying and
production of de luxe copies such as found in the Judean Desert.
b. This study refers only to the transmission of MT, not to its quality.
Even its inferior readings were transmitted carefully, as is often the case
in Samuel.
In our view, a combination of the literary evidence and that of the
excavations at Masada shows that we may identify the texts used in the
synagogue as the corrected scrolls mentioned in rabbinic literature.
These scrolls contain the proto-rabbinic text. This situation probably
prevailed in all of Israel, and many details known about these scrolls are
in agreement with the instructions for the writing of Scripture scrolls
written down at a later stage in rabbinic literature.
This argument possibly ties in with the assumption of Binder with
regard to a close connection between the temple and the synagogues.
64
It
stands to reason that the temple authorities would have been interested
in maintaining the copy in the temple as the base for Scripture scrolls
used everywhere in Israel, including synagogues.
65


63
Other data in rabbinic literature relating to the textual transmission are imprecise.
Cases in point are the lists of changes by the Greek translators and of the so-called
emendations of the Scribes.
64
Binder, Into the Temple Courts, 34350, 479500 (see n. 2 above); L. Levine, The First-
Century Synagogue, 267 (see n. 1 above) does not accept this view.
65
The analysis referred only to scrolls copied and distributed in Israel, and not to the
diaspora. The scrolls sent or brought to Alexandria for the translation of Greek Scripture
did not derive from temple sources. See the remarks above. It is also unlikely that the
vulgar text of R. Meirs Torah, used in Rome in the third century CE, derived from the
temple. Rabbinic literature preserves references to a Torah scroll taken by Titus to Rome as
booty after the destruction of the temple. In a later period, this scroll was given by Severus
(reigned 22235 CE) to a synagogue that was being built with his permission. This scroll,
also known as the Severus scroll, was of a vulgar type. From the scant information known
about the contents of that scroll, it appears that its characteristic features are the weakening
of the gutturals, the writing of non-final letters in final position, and the interchange of
similar letters. For details, see J. P. Siegel, The Severus Scroll and 1QIs
a
(SBLMasS 2;
Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975). Also Josephus, B.J. VII 150, 162 mentions that a copy
of the Jewish Law was taken by Titus from the temple. However, it is unlikely that this was
the main temple copy. The vulgar character of the Severus scroll would not have befitted
scrolls found in the temple, and the information given by Josephus is very vague.
16 CHAPTER TWELVE
II. Greek Texts Used in the Ancient Synagogues
Unlike the evidence for the Masada synagogue, there is no direct
archeological data for the use of specific copies of Greek Scripture in
synagogues in Israel or in the diaspora. It is likely that the Greek
translation of the Torah was used in Egypt in the third and second
centuries BCE, but this assumption cannot be proven.
66
At the same time,
there is ample literary evidence for the notion that Scripture was read in
Greek in religious gatherings of Greek-speaking communities from the
first century BCE onwards.
67
Among other things,
68
Philo refers to this
custom in Alexandria.
69
4 Macc 18:10-18, possibly written in Egypt in the
first century CE, expressly mentions the reading of the Law accompanied
by reflections taken from the Prophets, Psalms, and Hagiographa. A
liturgical use is indicated probably also in the last sentence in Expansion
F to Esther which names the book of Esther as a whole the Epistle of
Phrurai [= Purim] (ejpistolh;n tw` n Frourai), regarded as an Epistle
from Mordecai to the Jewish people concerning the feast of Purim.
Further, the LXX was used by learned writers, such as Philo in Egypt in
the middle of the first century BCE, Josephus in Rome at the end of the
first century CE, as well as Pseudo-Ezekiel and other, less known, Jewish-
Hellenistic authors.
70

For the use of Greek Scripture in Israel, probably the clearest
reference is contained in the so-called Theodotos inscription from
Jerusalem, usually ascribed to the first century CE. This inscription
71

states that Theodotus, son of Vettenos a priest and archisynagogos, son of
an archisynagogos and grandson of an archisynagogos, built this synagogue
for the reading of the Law (eij" aj n[av gn]ws[in] novmou) and the study of the
commandments .... The inscription is in Greek, and it may therefore be

66
Thus also G. Dorival in Bible grecque, 120.
67
Early papyri of the Pentateuch from Egypt (P.Ryl. Gk. 458 [200150 BCE] and P.Fouad
[first century BCE]) show that the Greek translation was known in various parts of the
country, but they do not necessarily prove use in religious gatherings.
68
For an early analysis of the evidence, see Frankel, Vorstudien, 4861.
69
Philo, Prob. 8182: They use these laws <those of the Torah> to learn from at all
times, but especially each seventh day, since the seventh day is regarded as sacred. On that
day they abstain from other work and betake themselves to the sacred places which are
called synagogues ...Then one of them takes the books and reads. See further Philo,
Hypoth. 7:13; Moses 2:215. The existence of Greek Torah scrolls is also referred to in m. Meg.
1.8; 2.1 and t. Meg. 4.13.
70
The writings of these authors have been reviewed by P. W. van der Horst, The
Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors, in Mikra, 51946.
71
See J. B. Frey, CIJ (Rom: Citta del Vaticano, Pontificio Istituto di archeologia cristiana,
1952) II.232 f, No. 1404; B. Lifschitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (CahRB
7; Paris: Gabalda, 1967) 7071.
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 17
assumed that the synagogue was used by a Greek-speaking community.
Hengel cautiously suggests that this synagogue was connected to the
Greek-speaking synagogue of Roman freedmen mentioned in Acts 6:9
(Liberti` noi).
72
Another such synagogue, a synagogue of the
Alexandrians in Jerusalem is mentioned in y. Meg. 3.73d and t. Meg.
2:17.
73
On the other hand, the fact that several scrolls of Greek Scripture
were found at Qumran does not indicate that these scrolls were read or
used either privately or in religious gatherings. The nature of the Greek
text finds in the Judean Desert is such that at all sites in that area there
are indications of the active use of Greek as a living language in
documentary papyri of different types, including in Nahal Hever where
the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll was found together with documentary
Greek papyri. Only at Qumran is this not the case, since, with the
exception of a documentary text 4QAccount gr (4Q350), no documentary
Greek papyri were found there; the literary Greek texts found at Qumran
(mainly Scripture texts) were probably brought there because they
happened to be among the possessions of one of the Qumranites.
74

When turning to the question of which text(s) of Greek Scripture
was/were used in Greek-speaking communities, we are groping in the
dark. Was it the text that we reconstruct as the OG translation such as
reproduced in the critical editions of Rahlfs or the Gttingen Septuagint,
or was it a different form, earlier or later? As for the possibility of earlier
texts, several Qumran Torah scrolls (especially 4QLXXLev
a
and
4QpapLXXLev
b
) provide glimpses of a text earlier than the Gttingen
model that is slightly more distant from MT than the main tradition of
the LXX and uses a less fixed vocabulary of Hebrew-Greek equivalents
than the main LXX tradition (cf. chapter 23*, I,1).
When we come closer to the synagogue environment, we find texts
that were corrected according to the proto-rabbinic Hebrew text used in
rabbinic circles, both BCE and CE. A major source for this assumption is
the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Nahal Hever dated
paleographically to the end of the first century BCE (cf. chapter 23*, I,10).
This Greek scroll was revised according to the proto-rabbinic Hebrew
text, together with other parts of the Greek Bible, and all of these
together are named the kaige-Th revision. This development implies that
there were central forces in the Jewish world assuring that the text that

72
M. Hengel, The Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ
(London/Philadelphia: SCM Press/Trinity Press International, 1989) 13.
73
For a discussion, see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
(175 B.C.A.D. 135) (ed. G. Vermes et al.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979) II.76.
74
See chapter 23*.
18 CHAPTER TWELVE
had been made central in its original, Hebrew/Aramaic shape would be
central also in its Greek shape. The fact that the Greek Minor Prophets
scroll was found among the remains of the followers of Bar Kochba,
linked to the Jerusalem religious circles, is not without importance. It
probably implies that this Greek text had the imprimatur of the rabbinic
circles. In this regard, it should also be mentioned that this scroll,
together with other early revisional manuscripts of the LXX, represented
the name of God not with kuvrio" but with paleo-Hebrew characters.
75

The find of the Minor Prophets scroll in Nahal H ever probably
implies that some of the followers of Bar Kochba read the Greek
Scriptures in this revised version, and this may also have applied to
other Greek-speaking communities in Israel.
By the same token, adherence to the similar revision of Aquila, one-
and-a-half centuries later than that of kaige-Th, is visible in rabbinic
literature, as most quotations in the Talmud from Greek Scripture reflect
that translation (see the evidence collected by Reider
76
and Veltri
77
) and
y. Meg. 1:71c says about him da ynbm typypy. This acceptance of the Jewish
revision of Aquila by the Rabbis
78
goes together with the rejection of the
main tradition of Greek Scripture, the LXX. Such a rejection is reflected
in several places in rabbinic literature, such as Sof. 1.7: It happened once
that five elders wrote the Torah for King Ptolemy in Greek, and that day
was as ominous for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made,
since the Torah could not be accurately translated. However, according
to Veltri, if these traditions are properly analyzed, they do not prove the
rejection of the LXX by the rabbinic sources.
79
Since Veltris analysis is
limited to a number of passages in the Talmud, and disregards the
manuscript finds of early Greek Scripture texts from Israel and Egypt, it
should nevertheless be concluded that the LXX was rejected at least from
a certain period onwards, described by Dorival as being from 100 CE.
80


75
Scribes A and B of 8HevXIIgr (end of 1
st
century BCE); P.Oxy. 50.3522 of Job 42 (1
CE); P.Oxy. 7.1007 (leather) of Genesis 23 (3 CE); P.Vindob. Gr 39777 of Psalms 68, 80 in the
version of Symmachus (34 CE); the Aquila fragments of Kings and Psalms (56 CE).
76
J. Reider, Prolegomena to a Greek-Hebrew & Hebrew-Greek Index to Aquila, Ph.D. diss.,
Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Philadelphia, 1916, 1515.
77
Veltri, Eine Tora, 18690.
78
The Aquila fragments from the Cairo Genizah and the Fayoum probably show a wide
distribution of use. Justinian in his Novella 146 from the 6th century (PL 69 [Paris: Garnier,
1878) 10514 settles an argument within the synagogue by allowing the use of Aquilas
version alongside that of the LXX: ... damus illis licentiam ut etiam interpretatione Aquilae
utantur.
79
Veltri, Eine Tora. See also my review inGreek and Hebrew Bible, 7582.
80
G. Dorival in Bible grecque, 12022.
THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE IN THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES 19
Thus, the manuscript evidence shows a group of Jewish revisions of
the LXX
81
in accordance with an ever-changing proto-rabbinic Hebrew
text (see chapter 23*). These revisions reflected the need to use a Jewish-
Greek text based on the content of the Hebrew Bible, often different from
that of the Greek Bible. Several of these revisions antedated Christianity
(kaige-Th [reflected among other things in 8HevXIIgr], P.Oxy. 7.1007, and
P.Rylands Gk. 458). Whether or not the circles that moved away from the
LXX were identical to those that are commonly named rabbinic is not
known, but they were closely related. Note, for example, that kaige-Th is
rightly described in the subtitle of Barthlemys Devanciers as sous
linfluence du rabbinat palestinien.
The analysis of the Hebrew and Greek texts in ancient Israel points to
the influence of the Jerusalem religious circles on the shape of the biblical
text in the original languages and in Greek, as well as in Aramaic.
Together with this trend, altogether different copies were scorned, so
that the Samaritans were accused of falsifying the Torah
82
and the Greek
translators were said to have inserted changes in the translation.
83
Had
the LXX and SP not been preserved and the Qumran scrolls not been
found, we would have known little about non-rabbinic copies of Hebrew
Scripture.

81
A similar development is visible in the Old Testament quotations in the New
Testament, which in the Gospels are often closer to MT than the main LXX text, and can
often be linked with the kaige-Th tradition. For a summary and examples, see M. Harl in
Bible grecque, 2767.
82
See y. Sot. 7.23c, b. Sot. 33b (ktrwt tpyyz) with regard to the addition in SP of k lwm
in Deut 11:30.
83
See my analysis in Greek and Hebrew Bible, 120.



CHAPTER THIRTEEN

THE BIBLIA HEBRAICA QUINTA
AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD

1. Background

When the Biblia Hebraica Quinta reaches completion around 2010 (?), it
will be a century since the appearance of the first editions of the Biblia
Hebraica.
1
A century is a long time, and indeed the first editions are very
primitive when compared with BHQ. BHQ also greatly improves upon
BHS that will have been in print for some thirty years by that time. Many
developments in the field of textual criticism, as well as in the realm of
Editionstechnik necessitated a new edition of the type of BHQ. BHS
remains the most frequently used edition in the field, but since much
criticism has been voiced against it, the time was considered ripe for a
change as the BH series is constantly being renewed. The organizing
bodies
2
could not have found a better general editor than Adrian
Schenker who embodies all the qualities needed for this job: insight and
innovation in textual criticism, understanding of the delicate relations
between textual criticism, exegesis, and literary criticism, organizational
talent, and clarity of thinking. He and the organizing bodies behind the
edition were able to gather a fine group of specialists, both the general
editors and the individuals responsible for the biblical books. These
scholars constitute an international and ecumenical team including, for
the first time in the BH series, Jewish scholars.
BHQ (Quinta = Fifth) may not be the ideal name for this edition due to
the ongoing confusion regarding the numbering of the editions in the BH
series, and because of the possible confusion with the name BQ (Biblia
Qumranica). Be that as it may, with the publication of a sample edition of

1
BH (1
st
and 2d editions; ed. R. Kittel; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905, 1913; 3rd ed.; ed. R.
Kittel and P. Kahle; Stuttgart: Wrttembrgische Bibelanstalt, 19291937; 7
th
ed. 1951).
The term seventh edition (see title page and p. XXXIX) is misleading, as BHS is
considered to be the fourth edition and BHQ the fifth. For the confusion, see the title page:
editionem tertiam denuo elaboratam ad finem perduxerunt, editionem septimam auxerunt et
emendaverunt A. Alt et O. Eissfeldt.
2
The initiative comes from the United Bible Societies, while the German Bible Society
serves as the sponsor (see General Introduction, VII).
2 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
the book of Ruth in 1998
3
and now with the publication of Part 18 of
BHQ (C + 96 + 168* pp.), a beginning was made to this important edition.
The present edition contains the following elements:
General Introduction in English (pp. VIIXXVI), German (pp. XXVIIL), and Spanish
(pp. LLXXI)
Figures (pp. LXXIIILXXV) illustrating the system of annotation
List of sigla, symbols, and abbreviations (pp. LXXVLXXXIV)
Definitions and abbreviations for the terms used to characterize readings (pp. LXXXV
XCIV)
Glossary of common terms in the Masorah Parva (pp. XCVXCVII)
Table of Accents (pp. XCIXC)
Edition of the Five Megillot (pp. 196)
Detailed introductions and commentaries to each of the Megillot (pp. 5*150*)
Bibliography (pp. 151*68*).
Altogether, this first fascicle contains 364 pages. The final edition of
the complete Bible will be of different proportions, as the text editions
will be separated from the commentaries.

2. The System as Described in the General Introduction

The history of the preparations for the edition and its background are well
described in the General Introduction (pp. XII ff). Many details and
principles that may not be clear to the first-time user are clarified. The
extremely detailed, judicious work by HOTTP since 1969 has not been in
vain, since the editorial principles of the present editorial board (Y. A. P.
Goldman, A. van der Kooij, G. J. Norton, S. Pisano, J. de Waard, R. D.
Weis, with A. Schenker as director) continue those of the earlier HOTTP
committee (counting as members such eminent scholars as D.
Barthlemy, A. R. Hulst, N. Lohfink, W. D. McHardy, H. P. Rger, and J.
A. Sanders). I say has not been in vain, since the masterpieces of
textual scholarship edited by D. Barthlemy and others have not
received the attention in scholarship that they deserve. Probably better
known were the volumes which laid out the working principles of these
scholars (HOTTP), while the volumes providing the detailed description
of the text-critical cases (Critique textuelle) were less known, probably
because the system followed was less practical for critical scholarship.
4


3
Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. A. Schenker et al.), Fascisculus extra seriem: Megilloth, Ruth
(ed. J. de Waard; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998).
4
These volumes commented only on textual differences between modern translations
(RSV, NEB, Bible de Jrusalem, Revidierte Luther Bibel), discussed in great detail by the
committee, which usually opted for the Masoretic reading. The very detailed discussion in
these volumes was too technical for Bible translators, and the choice of readings discussed
was unrealistic for the textual critic. At the same time, it should be noted that when taken
BIBLIA HEBRAICA QUINTA 3
The General Introduction describes the history of the BH series,
without entering into too much detail regarding the different
philosophies espoused in earlier editions. The issues raised in this
introduction are reviewed here, as judged from their application in the
edition itself.
a. The presentation of the base text of the BH series, codex L, is
brought to an absolute state of perfection. The editorial committee
brought aboard A. Dotan, the connoisseur par excellence of the text and
Masorah of that codex. The intricacies of the presentation of the codex
are described in the introduction, but since Dotan participates in this
edition (for the Masorah, as the title page states), the reader would like to
know what the differences are in the presentation of codex L in BHQ and
in the two diplomatic editions of the same codex which bear Dotans
own name.
5
As BHQ deviates occasionally from L (note the remarks in
the General Introduction, IXX), how does the presentation of the text
in this edition compare with Dotans system in his own editions? The
editorial board is aware of the limitations of L (some mistakes, some
missing vocalizations, its relative distance from Aaron Ben Moshe Ben-
Ashers system as opposed to the closeness of the Aleppo Codex to that
system), and accordingly considered other options (the Aleppo codex or
a combination of sources), but ultimately decided to adhere to L, not
least because a proofread electronic version of that codex was already
available (General Introduction, IX).
b. A major change in the presentation of the Masorah is that the Masorah
Magna is now provided in full immediately below the printed text, in
contrast to the conglomeration of cryptic numbers appearing in BHS,
cross-referring to lists in Weils edition of the Masorah.
6
The system in
BHS was indeed very unusual, and one wonders how many users ever
looked up a detail in the Masorah Magna in Weils edition. The Masorah
of L is now presented more or less diplomatically, including its mistakes
and discrepancies with the text of L itself (commented upon in the
notes), and with the addition of modern verse numbers, not needed by
the masters of the Masorah themselves. A detailed commentary on the
notes of the Masorah, in English (pp. 25*50*), introduces the reader to
its treasures and clarifies many an ambiguity.

together, Barthlemys masterly introductions to the individual volumes form an almost
complete introduction to textual criticism.
5
A. Dotan, ra b hm b rha l hrwsmhw ym[fh dwqynh yp l[ bfyh yqywdm ybwtkw yaybn hrwt
drgnynl dy btkb (Tel Aviv: Adi, 1976); Biblia Hebraica Leningradiensia (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 2001).
6
G. E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah manuscrit B.19a de Lningrad, vol. I Catalogi (Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1971).
4 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
c. As the principle chosen for the inclusion of details in the apparatus,
[t]he editors intend that, so far as possible, the apparatus will include all
cases of variation in these witnesses that meet two general criteria for
inclusion. First, such a variation is judged to be text-critically significant.
... Second, it is judged to be potentially significant for translation or
exegesis (General Introduction, XIII). The first criterion is seemingly
self-evident,
7
although the significance of many readings included in the
apparatus is not obvious, especially when secondary readings are
involved. The second criterion probably encompasses almost all
variations, since almost any variation is of interest at some exegetical
level, if exegesis is understood to include linguistic development,
orthography, and even scribal errors in Qumran scrolls (see below).
These definitions have to be kept in mind as the following paragraph
indicates that BHQ innovates in the direction of including more
variations than previous editions.
d. Formulaic explanations. The apparatus contains a long series of
formulaic explanations of the background of deviations from MT in the
versions which are explained as exegetical rather than pointing to
Hebrew variants. See further chapter 18*, 3 b 5.
e. Exegetical variations. The principle of including any variation that is
potentially significant for translation or exegesis involves the
recording of many variations from the versions and the Qumran scrolls
which are indeed relevant to biblical exegesis and the history of the
transmission of the biblical text ( d above). In these cases, BHQ offers
more than just the data, as a judicious analysis on the textual
commentary usually rules out the possibility that these are primary
(original) readings or (in the case of the ancient versions) that these
exegetical renderings are based on Hebrew variants differing from MT
(for examples, see d above). However, one wonders whether the
editors rendered the readers, especially the less experienced among
them, a good service. Would it not have been better to record these
readings in a separate apparatus, or possibly not at all? After all, many of
these readings do not belong to a critical apparatus of a textual edition
(see below). In my view, this type of recording should be left for
borderline cases in which it is unclear whether the translational deviation
reflects the translators exegesis or a Hebrew/Aramaic variant, and
should not be employed when the editors themselves suggest that a
reading in a Qumran scroll reflects an obvious mistake, or when a

7
The editors are aware that not all these variations reflect Hebrew variants: In other
words, the reading arguably, but not necessarily <my italics, E. T.>, represents a Hebrew
text differing from the editions base text (General Introduction, XIII).
BIBLIA HEBRAICA QUINTA 5
translation reflects content exegesis. For example, in the case of Esther,
the paraphrastic character of the LXX and Targum is well established,
and therefore the exegetical notes referring to these translations probably
should have been far fewer in number since almost certainly they do not
bear on text-critical issues. However, BHQ decided to break new ground
with this novel type of notation.
8

The principles behind this system have been adopted from the HUB
9

and, more so than that publication, they make the edition less user-
friendly.
10
However, while the HUB only contains borderline cases
between exegesis and the reflection of possible variants in the
translation, BHQ records many instances of exegetical renderings in the
versions.
f. Textual and literary criticism. BHQ heralds a major change in
approach towards textual data that, according to the editors, should be
evaluated with literary rather than textual tools since they involve data
that may reflect literary editions of a biblical book different from MT,
and are therefore absolved from textual judgment.
11
For an analysis, see
chapter 18*, 3 b.
g. Cautious evaluation. BHQ presents reconstructed variants from the
versions more cautiously than in the past, but stops short of making a
direct link between a reconstructed reading preferred by that edition,
and the text of the version (this practice is carried over from BHS). For an
analysis, see chapter 18*, 3 b.
h. The manuscripts from the Judean Desert are fully recorded in BHQ,
including both significant readingspossibly preferable to the readings
of MT and/or the LXXand those that are secondary. For an analysis,
see chapter 18*, 3 b.
i. Medieval manuscripts. The reduction in the number of medieval
manuscripts covered is a distinct improvement. For an analysis, see
chapter 18*, 3 b.
j. Conservative approach to evaluations. Textual evaluations in BHQ are
very conservative when compared with earlier editions in the BH series.

8
The General Introduction, XIII, is well aware that the novelty of this type of
recording transcends the textual treatment of the Hebrew Bible in the past, but the editors
nevertheless decided to include notes illustrating the translators exegesis.
9
Thus R. D. Weis, Biblia Hebraica Quinta and the Making of Critical Editions of the
Hebrew Bible, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 7 (2002) [http://purl.org/TC], 16.
10
The notation of BHQ is more complicated than that of the HUB, since in the latter
edition the explanations are included in a separate apparatus of notes, while in BHQ the
evidence is adduced together with its explanation in a single apparatus.
11
See chapter 18*, n. 61.
6 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Thus, while in Canticles in BHS, 32 variants are preferred to MT,
12
the
editor of BHQ makes only three
13
such suggestions (phrased as pref).
14

In all other cases, the text of MT is preferred.
15
By the same token, in
Ruth, compared with seven instances of a preference for a non-Masoretic
reading in BHS, BHQ prefers only one, in 4:4;
16
there are no conjectures
in the apparatus. In BHS in Lamentations, 49 preferences
17
for readings
other than MT are matched with only 7 similar preferences in BHQ. No
conjectures are recorded in the latter apparatus.
k. Ancient Versions. The apparatus contains an extensive presentation
of the evidence, fuller than in BHS, well documented and described in
the Introductions (pp. 5*24*). On the whole, the treatment of the
versions is better and definitely more careful than in the past. Among
other things, secondary versions made from the LXX such as the Old
Latin are now quoted only when they differ from the Old Greek, and
they are not quoted alongside that translation.
l. Retroversions. The apparatus contains an extensive presentation of
the textual evidence that is at variance with the main text, MT as
represented by codex L. For an analysis, see chapter 18*, 3 b.
m. User-friendly edition? On the whole, BHQ is much richer in data,
more mature, judicious and cautious than its predecessors; this
advancement implies more complex notations which almost necessarily
render this edition less user-friendly for the non-expert. The
juxtaposition in the apparatus of a wealth of exegetical readings and
important variants as well as some of the complex explanations in the
introduction will be grasped only by the sophisticated scholar. I do not
think that BHQ can live up to its own ideal: As was true for its
predecessors, this edition of Biblia Hebraica is intended as a Handausgabe
for use by scholars, clergy, translators, and students who are not
necessarily specialists in textual criticism ... specialists in textual criticism
should also find the edition of use, even though it is not principally
intended for them (General Introduction, p. VIII). The commentary

12
Textual suggestions in BHS are phrased in different ways, sometimes in conjunction
with question marks or words such as probably. I counted 23 cases of lege, one case of
prps, 2 cases of a gloss, two instances of transpose, one case of delete, two
suggestions of additions, and one of an insertion.
13
Cant 4:12; 7:7, 10. Preferences of Ketiv to Qere or vice versa are not included.
14
In addition, in Cant 2:14, the apparatus mentions a conjecture in vocalization.
15
In the words of the editor, The text of Canticles is well preserved, p. 8*.
16
In the words of the editor (p. 5*): The Masoretic Text in M
L
has been very well
preserved. The author probably meant: The text of Ruth has been well preserved in MT
according to codex L.
17
I counted 19 cases of lege, 19 of prps, one instance of transpose, 7 cases of
delete, one of add, and two of insert.
BIBLIA HEBRAICA QUINTA 7
and the introductions (see below) go a long way in bridging the gap for
the non-specialist, but I do believe that the specialist will grasp the
finesses of the sophistication better than the non-specialist who will often
be confused. Time will tell whether this assessment is correct.

3. The Commentary and Introductions

The publication of a detailed textual commentary (pp. 51*150*) in which
difficult readings are discussed, including an analysis of all readings
preferred to MT, represents a great step forward from all other editions.
The discussion describes all the relevant issues and is usually thorough
and judicious. The readings discussed present textual problems, for all of
which an opinion is expressed. One of the many advantages of this
commentary is that it discusses conjectures such as those suggested for
MT qrwt m in Cant 1:3 regardless of their acceptance by the editors. In
the reading quoted from Canticles, the difficulties of the MT wording are
analyzed, but the editor (P. D. Dirksen) does not feel that any other
reading is preferable to MT.
The strength of a commentary is in the relation between the
generalizations and the detailed remarks. Indeed, the authors of the
commentaries constantly deduct generalizations from details, and
explain details according to what is known from comparable instances.
Within this framework, much attention is given to the Hebrew and
translational base texts, described at length in the General Introduction
and the individual commentaries on the Five Megillot. The General
Introduction describes codex L (pp. XVIIIXX) and eight other Tiberian
manuscripts (pp. XXXXV) at length. The other sources are evaluated in
the beginning of the commentary to each biblical book. These
descriptions are very useful as they describe in detail the character of the
individual witnesses such as the LXX and especially their text-critical
value. Although the descriptions are brief, they show that the editors
have a real grasp of the material, and many a brief note may lead others
to continue these investigations. Thus the note about the relation
between the LXX and Peshitta in Ruth (the translator of S apparently
did not use G in any consistent way [p. 7*]) is very instructive. In
Canticles, the introduction mentions orthographic variations not entered
in the apparatus. On p. 9*, the differences in intervals between the
collated Tiberian manuscripts of Canticles are listed. One also finds a
helpful summary of the main secondary features of the scrolls recorded
in the apparatus itself. There is even a brief summary on the research of
the relation between LXX-Cant and kaige-Th in that book. The
8 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
commentary on Qohelet contains a good critique of Rahlfss edition that
is accused of being too close to MT.

4. Sigla and Abbreviations

The use of sigla and abbreviations in BHQ shows that this edition has
entered a new era. No longer does it operate in a world of its own, but
instead follows the SBL Handbook of Style and the Chicago Manual of Style.
It no longer refers to the Septuagint but to the Old Greek (p. LXXVI).
On the other hand, in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, BHQ uses the
outdated list of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and
Tools for Study from 1990, and not the summarizing list in DJD XXXIX
that is usually employed by scholars.
18

For the first time in the history of the Editionsgeschichte of Hebrew
Scripture, and possibly for the first time in the history of the textual
criticism of that literature, the editors try to express in abstract terms the
relation between the reading of MT and the other readings in categories
of relevance and irrelevance. These relationships are explained in the
General Introduction as The typology underlying the
characterizations (pp. LXXXVLXXXVIII). In these four pages, the
editors summarize their textual Weltanschauung in a way that will be
helpful only for the most sophisticated readers imaginable, but they, too,
should be allowed to look inside the think tank of the BHQ.
The first category of relations between MT and the other reading
pertains to the relevance of that reading or rendering (in BHQs
terminology: the case) to the text-critical problem. The following types
of readings are characterized as not bearing on the issue in the case
[strange English, incidentally]: illegible, insufficient,
indeterminate, irrelevant and literary. Literary is a strange
bedfellow with the other descriptions, but the principle is clear. The
bottom line is that all these cases have no bearing on text-critical
evaluation, although the categories themselves are very different.
The other groups of readings have some bearing on the case (thus
explained on p. LXXXV): II: characterizations of one reading as differing
from another, identifying only the point of difference (the only example
given is differ, with various sub-divisions). Group III contains
characterizations of one reading as representing a type of change from
another reading, but not commenting on the motivation of the change.

18
For the biblical scrolls, the differences may be small, but not all scrolls appear in
Fitzmyers list. For the non-biblical scrolls, which are quoted in BHQ, the differences are
more substantial.
BIBLIA HEBRAICA QUINTA 9
The following phenomena are listed in this group: conflation, double
reading/translation, gloss, metathesis, omission, spontaneous, trans-
position, but it is unclear why all these phenomena are named
changes. All these phenomena describe textual situations that make a
reading (usually a variant) different from the reading of MT, but a
difference is not a change, as the latter implies an intention. But even
if we mentally translate change to difference,
19
are these the only
phenomena of this kind? In our view, the next group, IV,
characterizations of a reading as representing a change arising through
accident is also wider than indicated. The following phenomena are
included in this category: dittography, haplography, homoioarcton and
homoioteleuton. Indeed, all these phenomena have arisen through
accident, creating a difference (named change in BHQ) between the
variant and the reading of MT. But these are not the only readings that
have been created by accident. Similar phenomena are mentioned
elsewhere in BHQs categorization: conflation, double reading,
metathesis, omission.
There is no need for further analysis of the categories, but the details
in this particular categorization are problematical. It is hard to know for
whom this abstract system of subdividing the descriptions into different
categories is helpful. It almost sounds as if these pages were written
primarily as guidelines for the collaborators in the project.
All the abbreviations of the sources and terms used (LXXVILXXXIV)
are the standard abbreviations and are clearly explained.
20

The description of the alphabetical list of the characterizations and
their definitions is usually helpful and it definitely breaks new ground,
enabling the readers to understand such standard explanations as
harmonization, interpretation, paraphrase, translational adjustment,
etc. Most of the abbreviations are briefly explained in the list of that
name, and the explanations used in the apparatus (named
characterizations on p. LXXXVIII) are explained in full on pp.
LXXXVIIIXCIV. However, not all abbreviations and definitions are
equally clear.
Ampl(ification) is described as a scribal phenomenon. The definition on p. LXXXVIII

19
This problem in terminology obtains throughout the introduction, and the reader gets
the impression that the wrong term is used all over: whenever BHQ mentions a change,
probably a difference is meant. Furthermore, the lack of distinction between reading and
variant (that is a Hebrew entity) on the one hand and rendering (in an ancient translation)
on the other further complicates the use of this list.
20
On the other hand, the complicated explanations of ast and obelos are completely
unintelligible. Smr for SP represents an unusual and probably misleading abbreviation.
10 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
adds: Ampl is to be distinguished from lit in that the former refers to developments
within the textual transmission of a single edition of a book, whereas the latter presupposes
the survival of more than one edition of a book. While the theory behind this description
is acceptable, it seems that the reader/user will be confused by the terms used.
Confl(ation) is described as a reading arising from the merging of two otherwise
attested readings. Is one to assume that all conflations presuppose the survival of the two
readings?
Crrp signals a judgment that the text is disturbed in some way... Is disturbed the
right term?
Div: It is unclear what div stands for on p. LXXXI (division of the consonantal
text) [to increase the confusion, this abbreviation stands for divine in the apparatus of
the HUB]. Does this abbreviation refer to differences in word division?
Interp(retation) is explained with a very long and sometimes unclear description
(appearing next to interpol[ation], the abbreviation interpr would have been better).
Usually this term accompanies the text of one of the textual witnesses interpreting the
lemma-word. Sometimes, however (Qoh 1:17; 12:5), the word also appears in the lemma
itself, thus confusing the reader.
Interpol(ation): ... the reading as having arisen from the insertion into the text of
textual matter from another document, or another part of the same document. Can a
learned scribe not insert his own thoughts in the form of an interpolation?
KR: Under this abbreviation (which, at first, I thought referred to the kaige revision,
this being its standard abbreviation), the reader finds the manuscripts described in the
editions of Kennicott and de Rossi (are these manuscripts really described or are they
collated?).
Midr(ash): this term proposes that the reading is inspired by an extant midrashic
tradition. However, is the midrashic tradition always extant, and should we not
occasionally surmise that a midrash-like tradition is involved?
Tiq(qun) soph(erim): The definition on p. XCIII ( ... whether or not the case is judged
actually to be such an emendation) is preferable to that on p. LXXXIV ( ... whether or not
the emendation is judged to be genuine).
Unconv: Explanations need to be self-evident. Will every reader guess that
unconv stands for unconverted rather than unconventional?
The annotated list of abbreviations is helpful, not only as a
description of the phenomena described in BHQ, but also as a guide for
textual criticism in general. Thus a copyist or translator may be
ignorant of such data described as ign-cultur, ign-gram, ign-lex.
If all these data were available to the readers of BHQ in electronic form
as they are to those of BHS,
21
the reader could compare the various
instances belonging to the same category, such as ignorance of the
cultural background of the Hebrew Bible. Naturally, the reader would
not have a grasp of the complete picture, since not all examples of a

21
Stuttgarter Elektronische Studienbibel (ed. C. Hardmeier, E. Talstra, and B. Salzmann;
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft and the Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap, 2004).
BIBLIA HEBRAICA QUINTA 11
given category have been adduced in BHQ, but the combined picture
would still be helpful.
Summary: This reviewer has found occasion to disagree with some
major and minor details in the philosophy of the recording and in the
explanations provided in the various sections of the edition. Without
such disagreements, scholarship does not advance. However, it should
be strongly stressed that, on the whole, BHQ is much richer in data, more
mature, judicious and cautious than its predecessors. It heralds a very
important step forward in the BH series. This advancement implies more
complex notations which almost necessarily render this edition less user-
friendly for the non-expert.
22


22
The reader is further referred to my summary statement in 2m above.





CHAPTER FOURTEEN

THE KETIV/QERE VARIATIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MANUSCRIPTS
FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT
1. Background
This study deals with the background of the Ketiv/Qere variations in MT,
addressing some of its aspects from the angle of the Judean Desert finds
and rabbinic literature. Since these variations belong exclusively to the
medieval Masorah and Masoretic manuscripts, they should be compared
with or looked for in the forerunners of these very manuscripts, that is
the so-called proto-Masoretic scrolls. Such scrolls have been found at
almost all manuscript sites in the Judean Desert, and a differentiation
between the various types of ancient scrolls is in order for a better
comparison with the Masoretic Ketiv/Qere variations.
When comparing the medieval MT manuscripts with the Judean
Desert texts we distinguish between two types of proto-Masoretic scrolls,
an inner circle of scrolls and a second circle of such scrolls that are rather
similar to them. The inner circle of texts, so named because of their
proximity to rabbinic circles, is found in all Judean Desert sites except for
Qumran, while a second circle of scrolls was found at Qumran. The texts
of the inner circle are identical to the medieval MT text, while those of
the second circle are very similar to them. For a detailed description of
these two groups of texts, see chapters 10* and 12*.
2. Ancient and Medieval Texts
The consonantal framework of the medieval manuscripts is identical to
that of the proto-Masoretic Judean Desert scrolls from sites other than
Qumran, but there is more to these texts than their consonants. For the
medieval tradition also carefully preserved all the scribal features
included in its ancient source and they are now part and parcel of the
Masorah: puncta extraordinaria (originally: cancellation dots),
paragraphing (open and closed sections), raised letters originally meant
as corrections, broken letters representing damaged elements, majuscule
2 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
and minuscule letters representing different sizes of letters, and a pair of
sigma and antisigma signs in Num 10:35-36 indicating superfluous
elements, transformed in the Masoretic tradition to inverted nunim.
1

All these features must have been copied from a proto-MT source
such as the Judean Desert scrollsby the scribe(s) of MT responsible for
the creation of the text that was perpetuated until the Middle Ages.
These features are early since they are mentioned in rabbinic literature
(see below), and they are so much an integral part of tradition that if, for
example, a scribe changed the paragraphing of the scroll, it was no
longer considered acceptable for reading.
2
By the same token, a
manuscript indicating verse division also was not acceptable.
3
It stands
to reason that all these Masoretic phenomena were carefully transferred
from an early scroll or scrolls, since the Judean Desert scrolls evidence
sigma and antisigma signs, paragraphing, puncta extraordinaria, etc., but a
caveat is in order. Masoretic manuscripts and ancient sources sometimes
differ in the details of paragraphing,
4
and no known scroll evidences the
puncta extraordinaria or the sigma and antisigma parenthesis signs in
exactly the same places as in MT.
5
However, this lack of evidence
probably derives from the fact that no proto-MT manuscript has been
preserved that covers the specific verses in which these Masoretic
features are found.
3. Ketiv/Qere Variations and the Ancient Sources
Having reviewed the correlation between the Masoretic features and the
Judean Desert scrolls, we note that one major feature of the rabbinic
traditions and medieval manuscripts is not reflected in any proto-MT

1
For details and bibliography, see TCHB, 5987.
2
See b. Shabb. 103b hjwtp hn[y al hmwts hmwts hn[y al hjwtp hrp (An open section may not
be written closed, nor a closed section open). Likewise Sof. 1.15: hmwts hmwts ha[ hjwtp
zngy hz yrh hjwtp ha[ (If an open section was written as closed or a closed section as open,
the scroll must be stored away). See further, Sifre Deuteronomy 36.1 on Deut 6:9.
3
See Sof. 3.7 wb arqy la wb yqwsph yar wqsp rps (If a Torah scroll has spaces <to mark>
the beginning of verses, it may not be used for the lections). Indeed, all ancient Hebrew
scrolls and unvocalized medieval Bible codices do not indicate verse division, which is now
part of the Masorah.
4
Since columns are of a different size, open and closed sections are bound to occur in
different places in different scrolls, and accordingly they could not always be reproduced
exactly in the next round of copying. Among other things, open and closed sections
occurring at the end of the line or just before the end cannot be distinguished well. Systems
used in the Middle Ages as compensation for these situations had not yet been developed.
5
One instance comes close, and even though the scroll in question is far from being
proto-Masoretic (1QIsa
a
), the data are striking: 1QIsa
a
XXXVII 15 (Isa 44:9) hmh. This word,
dotted in MT, was written in 1QIsa
a
as a supralinear addition without dots (
hmh
hmhyd[w).
KETIV/QERE VARIATIONS 3
source or, for that matter, in any text from the Judean Desert, namely the
procedure of Qere notations. These notations range from 848 to 1566
instances in the different medieval manuscripts, and this practice
involves the replacement of a reading in the text (Ketiv) with a Qere
reading. These Qere readings of MT have not been found as corrections
in the margins of the proto-MT scrolls 1QIsa
b
and MurXII (other proto-
MT scrolls do not cover relevant verses in MT).
6
By the same token, no
scroll
7
or translation
8
reflecting all or most of the Qere readings in the
running text is known. More generally, the very phenomenon of
marginal notations is not known in the scrolls and the biblical scrolls
record no variants, either in the margins or elsewhere.
9

The only partial parallel in the scrolls to Ketiv/Qere variations is the
appearance in the Qumran scrolls of linear and supralinear corrections of
mistakes, both elements omitted with cancellation dots or other systems,
and elements added above the line (see especially 1QIsa
a
and 4QJer
a
).
10

But there are differences between the two systems. Qere readings mainly
represent early variants, while the corrections in the scrolls primarily
pertain to scribal errors. Some of these corrections in the scrolls are
substantial, namely long additions between the lines of erroneously
omitted segments, such as in 1QIsa
a
and 4QJer
a
.
11
Other correcting
additions pertain to words, clusters of letters, and single letters added to
the base text. It is here that the Qumran evidence differs from the Qere
readings, since only some of the latter may be conceived of as corrections
of errors. Furthermore, most of the Qere readings pertain to single letters
(added, omitted, or changed), while most of the corrections in the scrolls
are more substantial.

6
In the preserved sections of 1QIsa
b
parallel to the MT of Isaiah, none of the eight Qere
readings has been denoted as a correction in the margin or supralinearly, and this pertains
also to the five instances of Qere covered by MurXII.
7
This issue can be examined for 1QIsa
b
(2x K, 4x Q, 1x different reading) and MurXII (3x
K, 2x Q).
8
According to the statistics of Gordis, Biblical Text, 66, the Peshitta and Vulgate reflect
some 70 percent of the Qere readings and the LXX some 60 percent, while in some books
the percentage is higher for the LXX. These data imply that the translations were made
from manuscripts that happened to contain many Qere readings in the texts themselves.
9
See Scribal Practices, 2245.
10
For the former, see the evidence collected by Kutscher, Language, 5316. For the latter,
see, for example, DJD XV, 153.
11
E.g., 1QIsa
a
XXX, between lines 11 and 13 and vertically in the margin of the following
sheet; XXXII 14 at the end of the line vertically in the margin; XXXIII 7 at the end of the line
and vertically in the margin; 4QJer
a
III 6 (Jer 7:308:3).
4 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Some scholars rightly admit that the background of the Qere readings
remains enigmatic,
12
but some aspects may nevertheless be clarified. One
of the problems inherent with the Qere readings is the fact that the
corpus of its readings is of a varied background and no single solution
can explain all of its types. One line of thought is the assumption that the
Qere readings, presented by the Masorah as corrections, started off as
manuscript variants that did not carry any binding force. At one time,
these variants may have been included in the running text of one or
more important manuscripts that differed from the equally important
Ketiv text.
13
In any event, the Qere readings should not be considered
corrections, since they intervene in the text inconsistently, and
sometimes are inferior to the Ketiv.
14

We now turn to the background of these Qere readings. In chapter 12*
we suggest that the proto-MT scrolls from the Judean Desert sites were
copied from the master copy in the temple court. These scrolls, probably
part of a group mentioned in rabbinic literature as corrected copies,
represented precisely the copy in the temple court, including its smallest
details such as cancellation dots above the letters. These scrolls must
have been copied very precisely since otherwise the manuscripts could
not have been identical.
However, if, as I have hypothesized, the carefully written proto-MT
scrolls from the Judean Desert were copied from the master copy in the
temple, including the preservation of minutiae such as these dots, one
wonders why no ancient parallel has been found for the Qere procedure
that is so characteristic of the medieval manuscripts. Therefore, can we
still claim that the temple court copy was the basis for the corrected
scrolls and the medieval tradition? I suggest that we can hold to our
view if we differentiate between most Masoretic notations that had an
ancient origin and the Qere readings that were added to the Masorah at a
later period. According to this assumption, neither the temple scroll nor
the so-called corrected scrolls included any Qere readings in the margins;
they were introduced for the first time in written form in the medieval

12
For example, I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (trans. and ed. E. J. Revell;
SBLMasS 5; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1980) 61.
13
For an analysis of the various possibilities, see Gordis, Biblical Text, e.g.,
Prolegomenon, p. XXIX: By the side of the archetypal manuscript they selected a small
number of others of high repute. From them they [scil., the early Masoretes] copied the
variants they regarded as worthy of attention and noted them on the margins of the
archetypal manuscript. In his summary on p. XLI, Gordis says: The Kethibh thus
preserved the reading of the archetype, while the Qere is a collection of variants from other
manuscripts. See further the analysis in TCHB, 5863.
14
See Gordis, Biblical Text and Tov, TCHB, 5863.
KETIV/QERE VARIATIONS 5
manuscripts.
15
This implies that the Qere differs from the other Masorah
features, all of which are evidenced in the Judean Desert scrolls. The
background of the Qere thus needs to be sought outside the realm of the
Judean Desert scrolls. A few remarks on this suggestion are in order:
a. We should not look for parallels to the Qere readings in the margins
of ancient scrolls, for they were not written there. We are probably
misled by the manuscripts of MT and by modern editions, both of which
represent the Qere as marginal corrections or footnotes.
16
But the
Masoretes had no such intention; they simply included the Qere in the
Masorah parva, and that apparatus as a whole was positioned in the
margin. The Masoretic practice does not imply that the individual Qere
readings were also positioned in the margin at an earlier stage.
b. Another reason for not looking for the Qere readings in the margins
of scrolls is because the Qere procedure was from the outset an oral, not a
written, procedure and was therefore necessarily represented by a single
reading. The major argument in favor of this view is the traditional
terminology creating an opposition between a Ketiv, a written form, and
a Qere, an element which is read.
17
In the past, this view was presented

15
H. M. Orlinsky, The Origin of the Kethib-Qere System: A New Approach, VTSup 7
(1960) 18492 likewise suggested that the Qere was not written in manuscripts before the
second half of the first millennium of our era.
16
This notion permeates the literature. E.g., in his influential handbook, Ginsburg,
Introduction, 183 notes: . . . Accordingly the marginal variant or the official reading, called
the Keri (yrq), is to have the vowel-points . . . Likewise, on p. 184: It is to be remarked that
this corpus of official various readings has been transmitted to us in three different forms.
(1) Originally each of these variations was given in the margin of the text against the word
affected by it. The word in the text was furnished with a small circle or asterisk over it,
which directed the reader to the marginal variant. This ancient practice still prevails in all
Massoretic MSS of the Bible and is adopted in all the best editions. Likewise, Gordis,
Biblical Text, Prolegomenon, p. XXVII and passim talks about the Qere as being? written in
the margin of MT.
17
The theory that the Qere represents an oral tradition is not without problems because,
according to this view, all Qere readings should be orally distinguishable from the Ketiv
forms. However, this is not always the case, as in:
K/Q readings involving haplography, such as:
2 Sam 5:2 K ta ybmhw / Q ta aybmhw (Gordis, Biblical Text, list 7)
third person singular pronominal suffix, such as:
Gen 9:21 K hlha / Q wlha (Gordis, Biblical Text, list 4)
interchange between holam and qametz hatuph (Gordis, Biblical Text, lists 30 and 31),
such as Josh 9:7 K l-trka / Q l twrka, 2 Chron 8:18 K twynwa / Q twyna
interchanges of wl/al.
The background of this non-distinction in pronunciation between some K/Q variations
is that even though the Qere reflects a reading tradition, it was originally based on
manuscripts that included variants that are not distinguishable orally.
6 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
by Levin and Breuer and, with more clarity, by Barr.
18
The procedure of
Ketiv wela Qere (a word written but not read) and Qere wela Ketiv (a word
read but not written) makes this view even more likely, since zero
consonantal readings could not be recorded in the margin or text before
the invention of vocalization.
c. The oral tradition of Qere readings is at least as old as rabbinic
literature, in which reading traditions differing from the written text are
referred to as we read (nyrq). For example, b. Erub. 26a records,
referring to 2 Kgs 20:4, It is written the city, but we read court.
19
In
the discussion, the Ketiv is mentioned, but disregarded: al why[y yhyw rman
rxj nyrqw ry[h bytk hnwkyth rxj (la) ax:y: .
d. At an earlier stage, the most central Qere reading was accepted by
the LXX translators. The employment of kuvrio" in that translation for the
Tetragrammaton probably reflects the same custom that was later
reflected in the Masoretic perpetual Qere. The Greek tradition was
early, though not necessarily as early as the third century BCE as claimed
by Gordis,
20
since the earliest manuscripts of the LXX probably
contained the transliteration IAW, as in 4QpapLev
b
.
21

e. The Ketiv text probably represents the ancient copy in the temple.
That copy evidently could no longer be changed,
22
as otherwise either
the Qere readings themselves would have been incorporated into it or the
whole scroll would have been replaced with the Qere scroll. The
preference for the Qere scroll was perhaps due to its being a newer
version,
23
replacing several groups of archaic Ketivs such as the female

18
S. Levin, The yrq as the Primary Text of the nt, Hagut Ivrit be'Amerika I (Heb.;
Yavneh, 1972) 6186; M. Breuer, arqmh jswnb [dmw hnwma, Deoth 47 (1978) 10213; J. Barr, A
New Look at Kethibh-Qere, OTS 21 (1981) 1937.
19
Manuscripts and editions likewise indicate here: Ketiv ry[h, the city, Qere rxj,
court. For further examples, see b. Yoma 21b (on Hag 1:8); ibid. 38b (on 1 Sam 2:9); b. Men.
89b (on Lev 23:13). See also Midrash Qere we-la Ketiv included in the collection of A. Jellinek,
Bet ha-Midrasch 5 (Vienna, 1873; repr. Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrman, 1967) 2730.
20
Gordis, Biblical Text, xvii.
21
Published by P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and J. E. Sanderson, DJD IX. For an analysis, see
chapter 23*.
22
This situation reminds us of the procedures followed by the Masoretes at a later
period. When adding vowels to the text, the Masoretes could no longer change the
consonantal framework because that was sacrosanct, requiring them sometimes to
superimpose on the letters a vocalization that went against the letters themselves. For
examples, see TCHB, 43.
23
Thus also Gordis, Biblical Text, xxviii. In Gordiss view, after the master copy was
deposited in the temple, and when it was recognized that the scroll was occasionally in
error, it was annotated with marginal corrections from other manuscripts. The procedure
followed for the addition of these corrections was described in the baraita in y. Taan. 4.68a
(see chapter 12*, n. 38) about the three scrolls found in the temple court (Gordis, p. xli).
However, such a procedure is not described in this baraita.
KETIV/QERE VARIATIONS 7
Qere form atti (yta) corrected to at (ta) and the archaic third person plural
feminine qatlah corrected to qatlu.
24
The nature of the Qere text differed
from book to book as may be expected in a corpus composed of different
scrolls.
25

Summarizing, we note:
1. The proto-Masoretic texts from the Judean Desert (except for
Qumran) are identical to the medieval manuscripts and exactly
represented their source, probably the scroll of the temple court.
2. These proto-Masoretic texts represent all the features of the
medieval text and, presumably, of the temple copy, including all its
scribal phenomena, with the exception of the Masoretic Ketiv/Qere
variations.
3. The Ketiv/Qere variations were not included in the margins of any
ancient text.
4. Rather, they reflect an oral tradition, which only at a late stage was
put into writing in the Masoretic tradition.


24
For the former, see, for example, Judg 17:2 and for the latter 1 Kgs 22:49 K hrbn/ Q wrbn.
For the full evidence, see Gordis, Biblical Text, lists 1325. See also M. Cohen, The Kethib and
the Qeri System in the Biblical Text A Linguistic Study of the Various Traditions (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 2007); S. E. Fassberg, The Origin of the Ketib/Qere in the Aramaic Portions of
Ezra and Daniel, VT 29 (1989) 112.
25
Probably the more stable the textual condition of the books, the fewer the variants that
existed, and as a result fewer Qere readings were invoked. The fact that there are very few
cases of K/Q in the Torah probably indicates that the textual transmission of that book was
stable in the temple copy, while that of Samuel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel was more fluid. Barr,
A New Look, 32 (see n. 18), who was the first to pay attention to the statistical aspects,
provided the following figures:
Low figures: Genesis (15), Exodus (10), Leviticus (5), Numbers (9), MP (29)
Medium figures: Isaiah (53), Psalms (68), Job (52)
High figures: Samuel (155), Kings (118), Jeremiah (142), Ezekiel (123).
These figures are based on Dotans edition of codex L. According to Barr, Daniel with
140 instances of K/Q is a special case, since most of them are in the Aramaic section.




CHAPTER FIFTEEN

THE WRITING OF EARLY SCROLLS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LITERARY ANALYSIS OF HEBREW
SCRIPTURE

Dating from the mid-third century BCE until the mid-second century CE,
the biblical scrolls from the Judean Desert are very early in comparison
with the medieval codices of MT. However, compared with the earliest
copies of Hebrew Scripture, they are actually late. Whatever view one
holds on the dates of the composition and final redaction of the books of
Hebrew Scripture, it remains true to say that these activities preceded
the copying of the Qumran scrolls by several centuries. Likewise, the
composition and redaction of the biblical books preceded the OG
translation by the same time span, as the LXX translation was produced
between the beginning of the third century BCE and the end of the second
century BCE.
The realia of writing and rewriting ancient scrolls forms the topic of
this chapter, treated here in conjunction with a seemingly remote issue,
namely the literary analysis of the Hebrew Bible.
The shape of the earliest copies of Scripture. To the best of our knowledge,
the early biblical books or parts thereof must have been written on scrolls
of either papyrus or leather. There probably was no alternative to the
writing of texts in portable scrolls.
1
These ancient scrolls were ruled with
the letters suspended below the lines, and inscribed in writing blocks or
columns. There is no direct evidence regarding the main writing material
for long texts used in ancient Israel
2
before the period attested by the


1
Indeed, according to Jeremiah 36, Baruch recorded the dictations of Jeremiah on a
scroll. As a result, the insistence in Jewish and Samaritan tradition on the scroll as the
earliest form of the Torah is probably realistic. Thus, Sifre Deuteronomy 160 (ed.
Finkelstein [New York/Jerusalem: Bet Ha-midrash Le-rabbanim be-Amerikah, 1993] 211)
explains every rps in Scripture as a hlygm of leather, such as in Deut 17:18, where it is used in
reference to the book of the king.
2
Thus R. Lansing Hicks, Delet and M
e
gillah: A Fresh Approach to Jeremiah XXXVI, VT
33 (1983) 4666. One of the arguments used by Lansing Hicks (p. 61) is that a knife was
used by Jehoiakim to cut the columns of Baruchs scroll exactly at the sutures since the text
2 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Judean Desert scrolls. Both leather and papyrus were in use in Egypt at a
very early period, but it is not impossible that leather was preferred in
ancient Israel because it was more readily available than papyrus that
had to be imported from faraway Egypt. On the other hand, according to
Haran, papyrus served as the main writing material during the First
Temple period.
3

From the various topics relating to the physical shape of ancient
scrolls, we focus on two, namely correction procedures and the physical
limitations of writing in a scroll.
4
The implications of this analysis will be
treated thereafter.
1. Correction Procedures
Upon completing the copying, and often while still in the process, scribes
frequently intervened in completed writing blocks; by the same token,
later correctors and users often inserted their corrections in the text.
Careful attention to the intricacies of the correction process known from
the Qumran scrolls helps us to better understand not only scribal
transmission, but also the growth of ancient literature. This intervention
is known from the Qumran scrolls in four different forms, or
combinations thereof.
Removal of a written element by erasing or blotting out, crossing
out, marking with cancellation dots or a box-like shape around letters or
words.
Addition of a letter, word or words in the interlinear space or,
rarely, in the intercolumnar margin.
Remodeling (reshaping) of an existing letter to another one.

mentions that after every three or four columns, Yehudi cut the scroll (Jer 36:23). The use
of a knife may indicate the cutting of a leather scroll, as a tool of this type would not have
been needed for papyrus.
3
M. Haran, Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period. The Transition
from Papyrus to Skins, HUCA 54 (1983) 11122. In support of this assumption, Haran
mentions the Egyptian influence on Canaan in this period that would have included the
use of papyrus, the low price of papyrus in contrast to leather, and the biblical use of the
root hjm, a verb signifying erasure of a written text with a liquid which is possible only in
papyrus. Haran also refers to Jer 51:63 which mentions the binding of a stone to a scroll so
that it would sink in the Euphrates River. According to Haran, this scroll was made of
papyrus, since a leather scroll would have sunk without a stone. According to this scholar,
at the beginning of the Second Temple period scribes started to use leather for long texts.
However, it should be countered that already in ancient Egypt papyrus was used for very
long texts. See further the discussion by A. Lemaire, Writing and Writing Materials, ABD
(New York: Doubleday, 1992) 6.9991008.
4
For a full discussion, see Scribal Practices, 2229.
WRITING OF EARLY SCROLLS 3


Altering the spacing between words.
5

Not all these systems were employed in early scrolls, since some
practices used in the Qumran scrolls had been imported at a later stage
from other cultures.
6

2. Technical Limitations of Writing in a Scroll
That the content of the Qumran scrolls (and the LXX) is relevant for the
literary analysis of Hebrew Scripture has long been recognized, as they
preserve a few vestiges of alternative formulations of the biblical books,
such as in the case of Samuel, Jeremiah and Psalms, and possibly also
Joshua and Judges. But we turn now to a related issue, viz. the possible
relevance to literary criticism of correcting procedures used in the
Qumran scrolls.
The discussion turns first to (a) technical difficulties in inserting
substantial changes and additions, and in deleting elements in the
inscribed text after the completion of the writing, then to (b) the relevant
Qumran evidence. Subsequently (3) we turn to some implications of this
analysis for the literary criticism of Hebrew Scripture.
One of the issues at stake is whether, from a technical point of view,
scribes could insert significant changes in a scroll after the completion of
the writing. We suggest that, as a rule, this was impossible.
a. Technical difficulties in inserting changes in the inscribed text
The first issue to which our attention is directed is that of the writing on
leather and papyrus in columns and the difficulties encountered if a
scribe wanted to insert corrections in more or less fixed writing blocks
surrounded by relatively small margins. Because of these inflexible
parameters, and also because of the limited possibilities inherent in the
writing material, substantial correction of finished columns was
technically almost impossible. Thus, after the completion of the writing,
there simply was no space in the columns, margins, or anywhere else for
any addition longer than one or two lines. Such additions could have
been placed in three different positions, but in fact none was used for
this purpose:


5
Such changes were achieved either by indicating with scribal signs that the last letter of
a word belonged to the following word or by indicating that there should be a space
between two words which had been written as one continuous unit.
6
Thus several correction procedures in the Judean Desert scrolls resemble notations
used in Greek sources: crossing out of letters or words with a horizontal line, antisigma and
sigma (parenthesis signs) and cancellation dots/strokes. Cf. Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 16.
The latter two systems are not known from earlier Semitic sources, and may have been
transferred from Greek scribal practices.
4 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Margins.
7
In most Qumran scrolls, the sizes of the margins are
relatively fixed and of limited scope and therefore could not be used for
inserting substantial text. In these scrolls, the top margins are usually
1.02.0 cm, and the bottom margins are slightly larger (1.52.5 cm).
Larger margins, between 3.0 and 7.0 cm, are rare in the Qumran texts,
occurring mainly in the late texts from Nahal Hever, Masada, and
Nahal Seelim dating to the first and second centuries CE. Such large
margins occur almost exclusively within the tradition of authoritative
Scripture scrolls containing MT, and are commonly a sign of a de luxe
format as in similar Alexandrian Greek scrolls.
8
Since the size of margins
has grown over the course of the centuries, early scrolls would not have
contained large margins. Intercolumnar margins (1.01.5 cm) left little
room for additions and, with a few exceptions, they were not inscribed
in any of the known scrolls, and likewise top and bottom margins are
inscribed only very rarely.
Handle sheets. Many scrolls included handle sheets, that is, protective
sheets at the beginning or end of the scroll, or at both extremities.
However, the known specimens of such handle sheets were uninscribed.
Actually, from a technical point of view it would have been difficult to
indicate where in the scroll a section written on an empty handle sheet
belongs.
Repair sheets. Sheets were stitched together after the writing had been
completed. Technically it would be possible to disconnect any two sheets
and to insert between them a new one containing additional text, or to
replace a sheet with a new one. In three cases, such sheets have possibly
been preserved,
9
but the evidence is unconvincing. Further, in the case of
an additional sheet it would actually be difficult to indicate with arrows
or otherwise how the text in the repair sheet relates to the existing
columns.
In sum, after the text was inscribed, it was almost impossible to add
anything substantial to the written text, in the column itself, in one of the
margins, or on a blank sheet at the beginning, end, or middle of the
scroll.


7
Most columns are surrounded by uninscribed top and bottom margins, as well as by
intercolumnar margins. The rationale of these margins is to enable the orderly arrangement
of writing blocks in rectangular shapes, even when the edges of the leather were not
straight. The margins also enabled the handling of the scroll without touching the inscribed
area. For this purpose, the bottom margins were usually larger than the top ones.
8
On scrolls of a de luxe format, see chapter 10*, 3 and Scribal Practices, 1259.
9
The first sheets of 4QDeut
n
, 4QJub
a
(4Q216), and 11QT
a
(11Q19).
WRITING OF EARLY SCROLLS 5


Similar problems obtained with regard to the deletion of substantial
segments in leather scrolls. Physical erasure in such scrolls would be
almost impossible and very inelegant. In principle, any large segment
could have been deleted with one of the deletion signs,
10
but these were
not yet used in early sources and, besides, they too, would have been
inelegant.
The same problems existed with regard to the insertion of changes
within the writing block, that is, erasure followed by addition of
amended text. Erasure in leather scrolls was almost impossible, let alone
inscribing a substantial new text on an erased area. Therefore, if we were
to visualize a scribe physically erasing all occurrences of the
Tetragrammaton in the second and third book of the Psalter (Psalms 42
83 [but not 8489]), and replacing them with elohim, we would have to
think in terms of a rather unreadable scroll.
11
By the same token, if the
manifold theological corrections in the MT of Samuel, such as in
theophoric names,
12
were created in this way, the scroll would have been
rather unreadable.
The difficulties described above pertained to both leather (skin) and
papyrus, but in one situation papyrus was more user-friendly than
leather, as the written surface could be washed off and replaced with
alternative content (if the two texts were of the same length). However,
in the other types of correction, papyrus was as difficult for scribes as
leather: In deletions on papyrus, an inelegant blank area had to be left in
the middle of the inscribed text and likewise there was no space for
substantial additions in the middle of the text in papyri.
b. The Qumran evidence
Having reviewed the technical difficulties regarding the insertion of
corrections in leather and papyrus scrolls, we now turn to the Qumran
evidence relating to textual intervention in biblical and nonbiblical
scrolls. Although that evidence is relatively late in comparison with the
earliest copies of the biblical books, it is still relevant as a source of
information about correction procedures in earlier periods. Additionally,
the Qumran corpus has the added value of providing direct information
concerning the process of rewriting sectarian compositions, such as the
Community Rule and the Damascus Covenant, written in the last
centuries BCE. In the many copies of these compositions, the rewriting


10
For details, see Scribal Practices, 2229.
11
Most scholars assume that such replacement took place, but they do not express a
view on the procedure used.
12
See TCHB, 2679.
6 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

procedures can be examined closely by comparing their content
differences.
The most salient observation relating to the biblical and nonbiblical
Qumran scrolls is the absence of visible techniques for presumed
procedures of correcting and rewriting. However, when assessing the
absence of these techniques we have to ask ourselves whether the
evidence of the biblical Qumran scrolls may be too late for
understanding earlier processes of rewriting, whether such a process of
rewriting took place at all, or whether the supposed rewriting procedure
left no visible vestiges, such as large additions written in the margins.
If there are no physical remains of large content rewriting in Qumran
scrolls, there is some evidence for content changes on a small scale in a
few nonbiblical scrolls. For example, in 1QS VII 8, the length of the
punishment for nursing a grudge against ones fellow-man (six months,
also found in 4QS
e
(4Q259) 1 i y[dwj h]) was removed through the use
of parenthesis signs and replaced by a more stringent punishment of
one year written above the line. By the same token, several types of
small content corrections in 1QH
a
may have been based on other copies
of Hodayot, such as 4QH
c
(4Q429) and 4QpapH
f
(4Q432).
13

In the biblical scrolls, on the other hand, there is no visible evidence at
all for small
14
or large content changes. This statement may come as a
surprise, as the Qumran scrolls contain manifold interlinear corrections.
However, most of these corrections pertain to scribal errors, corrected by
the original scribe, a later scribe or a reader.
15
The corrections themselves
were based on the correctors internal logic, his Vorlage, or another
manuscript.
16

If there is no visible evidence in the Qumran scrolls, biblical and
nonbiblical, for procedures of content correction and rewriting, should
we adhere to the assumption that such procedures nevertheless took


13
See Scribal Practices, 28.
14
We disregard here a small number of linguistic corrections and word substitutions,
such as found occasionally in 1QIsa
a
.
15
1QIsa
a
provides several examples of large-scale corrections: The original scribe of that
scroll sometimes left out one or two verses, which were subsequently written in small
letters between the lines: Cols. XXVIII 18 (Isa 34:17b35:2); XXX 1112 (Isa 37:4b-7); XXXII 14
(Isa 38:21); XXXIII 7 (Isa 40:7), 1516 (Isa 40:14a-16). Interestingly enough, in some cases, the
original scribe left room for these additions (XXVIII 18, XXX 1112, XXXIII 1516), and we are
left wondering why the scribe did not fill in the text himself. In 4QJer
a
col. III, the scribe left
out a major section by way of parablepsis (7:308:3), which was subsequently added
between the lines, in the intercolumnar margin, and under the column, written upside
down.
16
See Scribal Practices, 2229.
WRITING OF EARLY SCROLLS 7


place? In the case of a positive reply, how should we picture these
procedures? Some scholars reject the assumption of content rewriting in
biblical books, rendering it necessary to clarify now that we do accept the
assumption of critical scholarship that most biblical books went through
stages of revision after their initial writing. But having said this, we do
not take a position as to how the rewriting took place. Analyzing the
difficulties of the correction procedures and the evidence of the Qumran
scrolls, we assume that generations of editors or scribesthe term does
not matter
17
did not insert their content changes into existing copies. No
rewriting, adding, or deleting could be executed in the form of
corrections of existing scrolls because of the aforementioned technical
limitations of writing in scrolls. Instead, editors and scribes must have
created fresh copies for expressing their novel thoughts. In other words,
rewriting took place mainly in the minds of scribes/editors,
18
and
therefore did not leave visible vestiges on leather or papyrus. As far as I
know, this assumption is valid also for Greek papyri.
One might oppose this description by claiming that the Qumran
scrolls (from the third pre-Christian century to the first century CE) are
too late in the development of the transmission of Scripture for basing a
view on developments in yet earlier centuries, when different writing
techniques were possibly in vogue. True, we have little knowledge about
these earlier periods, but probably at that time the technical problems
inherent with writing and correcting would have been even greater than
at the time of the writing of the Qumran scrolls.
Our suggestion regarding the assumed process of rewriting of the
biblical scrolls is supported by the Qumran evidence relating to parallel
copies of sectarian compositions: the Community Rule (12 copies), War
Scroll (7), Instruction (8), Hodayot (9), Damascus Document (10), etc. In
these copies, very few physical vestiges of content rewriting are visible
and, when nevertheless extant, they pertain to a few small details, as


17
It is hard to define these terms, as editors were also scribes, and even some authors
must have been scribes (when reading and misreading his source scrolls, the Chronist acted
as a scribe). The distinction between these two terms must have been chronological: in later
periods scribes were merely copyists like medieval scribes, while in earlier periods each
person writing a scroll considered himself a minor collaborator in the process of the
creation of the biblical books. Such a person allowed himself small content changes. In yet
earlier periods, the persons who were involved in major aspects of the creation of these
books may be referred to as editors/scribes, as they wrote the biblical books in scrolls,
while allowing themselves major content changes, such as the insertion of what is now a
complete chapter.
18
This description does not rule out the possibility that scribes used other scrolls, drafts,
or private notes.
8 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

mentioned above. At the same time, in spite of the almost total lack of
physical remains of content alterations recognized through the
comparison of parallel copies, these differences are manifest also without
external indications. The nature of these content differences indicates
developed editorial activity. For example, in the Community Rule,
Alexander and Vermes distinguish between four different editorial
stages (recensions), which they named A, B, C, and D.
19
This also
pertains to the various recensions of the War Scroll,
20
differing in the


19
DJD XXVI, 912 distinguishes between at least four recensions of S: 1QS, 4QS
b

(4Q256) and 4QS
d
(4Q258), 4QS
e
(4Q259), 4QS
g
(4Q261). As a rule, 4QS
b
(4Q256) and 4QS
d

(4Q258) present shorter versions of the Community Rule than 1QS. In this case,
abbreviating took place in individual words, short phrases, and sentences, as indicated in
the notes in the edition of J. H. Charlesworth (ed., with F. M. Cross et al.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, I, Rule of the Community
and Related Documents (Tbingen/Louisville: Mohr [Siebeck]/Westminster John Knox
Press, 1994). Thus also P. S. Alexander, The Redaction History of Serekh-Ha-Yahad: A
Proposal, RevQ 17 (1996) 43756. While the shorter texts of S from cave 4, 4QS
b
(4Q256)

and 4QS
d
(4Q258), probably abbreviated a text such as 1QS, it is very difficult to decide in
which details these texts represent shorter formulations or, alternatively, textual mishaps.
The fact that the phrase sons of Zadok the priests who keep the covenant is found in 1QS
V 2, 9, but is lacking in both 4QS
b
and 4QS
d
, seems to indicate that the omission or addition
is intentional. The same problems obtain with regard to 1QS V 9 tyrb yna bwrlw which lacks
djy when compared with djyh yna tx[ of 4QS
b
(4Q256) IX 8 and 4QS
d
(4Q258) I 7. On the
other hand, in the same col. V of 1QS there are seven occurrences of djy, the communitys
self-appellation, which are lacking in the parallel sections in 4QS
b
(4Q256) and 4QS
d
(4Q258). In the case of 4QS
e
(4Q259), S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran
Community Rule (STDJ 21; Leiden/New York/Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1997) 6974 believes that
the shorter text of that manuscript formed the basis for the longer text of 1QS. In
contradistinction to all these scholars, G. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, A Critical Edition
(JSPSup 35; Copenhagen International Series 8; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2001)
70710 believes that the differences between the various copies of S reflect free variants
expansions, paraphrases, glosses added for clarity (p. 707).
20
J. Duhaime pointed out that 4QM
a
(4Q491) and 1QM do not relate to one another as a
source and its revision, but that both reworked an earlier source, now lost: Dualistic
Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran, CBQ 49 (1987) 3256; idem, tude comparative
de 4QM
a
Fgg. 13 et 1QM, RevQ 14 (1990) 45972. For the sources, see the editions of 1QM
(Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light [Heb.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955])
and 4QM (M. Baillet, DJD VII; The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with
English Translations, 2, Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents [ed. J. H.
Charlesworth; Tbingen/Louisville: Mohr [Siebeck]/Westminster John Knox Press, 1995]).
For a more elaborate reconstruction of the composition process, see P. Alexander, The Evil
Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to
Rome, in Paul, Emanuel, 1731, esp. 22. Thus, 1QM displays a greater emphasis on purity
than 4QM
a
(4Q491), and the former often has a longer text than the latter. At the same time,
several scholars suggested that 1QM presents a later revision of the cave 4 copies of the
War Scroll: F. Garca Martnez, Estudios Qumranicos 19751985: Panorama crtico, EstBib
46 (1988) 3514; B. Nitzan, Processes of Growth of Sectarian Texts in Qumran, Beth Miqra
40 (1995) 23248 (Heb.); E. and H. Eshel, Recensions of the War Scroll, in Schiffman, Dead
Sea Scrolls, 35163.
WRITING OF EARLY SCROLLS 9


inclusion or exclusion of major segments.
21
Phrased differently, each
copy of the Community Rule and the War Scroll should be considered a
separate unit, since all of them contain idiosyncratic material. Since no
physical evidence for the insertion of these content changes has been
found in any of the extant manuscripts, it stands to reason that the
differences between these copies were created not by inserting
corrections in existing scrolls, but when writing a new scroll on the basis
of an earlier one.
The differences among these copies of the sectarian compositions are
greater than among the known Scripture manuscripts, but no greater
than the assumed differences between early biblical scrolls, when large
sections were still added, deleted, and rewritten. The Qumran non-
biblical scrolls thus present us with a valuable parallel for an early stage
in the development of the biblical books.
22

3. Some implications for the literary criticism of Hebrew Scripture
From the beginning of the critical scholarship of the Hebrew Bible, and
especially within the historico-critical approach, scholars have assumed
that many biblical books were composed of different layers
superimposed upon earlier texts.
23
Such a new layer would have
involved the addition or deletion of stories, lists, chronologies, psalms,
etc. I am not speaking about a new creation that as a whole is based on
earlier texts, such as the Chronicler who created a new composition
using different sources for each historical period. Nor am I speaking
about early editors who created new compositions by combining
different written sources, such as the integration of the poetry of
Jeremiah (source A) and his biography (B) into one coherent whole. We


21
For example, 1QS cols. IIV are lacking in the parallel position in 4QS
d
. 4QS
e
did not
contain the so-called Hymn of the Maskil (1QS VIII 15IX 11). 4QS
g
may not have contained
The Rule for the Session of the Many (1QS VI 823). At the same time, 4QS
b
contains
material not found in 1QS. 4QpapS
a
, written in a crude cursive on the back of another text,
and palaeographically probably the earliest exemplar of S, likewise contains some different
material. Alexander and Vermes surmise that this copy may contain an early draft of the
Community Rule, possibly even its first draft.
22
In his analysis of the types of differences among the parallel nonbiblical texts from
Qumran, Vermes remarked that they resemble those among different manuscripts of the
biblical text: G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls Forty Years On: The Fourteenth Sacks Lecture
Delivered on 20th May 1987 (Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, 1987) 1015.
23
Indeed, one of the models which has been developed alongside the Documentary
Hypothesis is the Supplementary Hypothesis (Ergnzungshypothese) of stories, laws, etc.
added to an existing kernel. See, e.g., O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (3d ed.;
Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1964) 23940.
10 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

refer only to a scenario of an editor-scribe who rewrote an existing
written text.
The assumption of rewriting previous formulations has become one
of the axioms of historico-critical analysis, but as far as I know, little
thought has been given to the realia of this rewriting. Introductions,
commentaries, and monographs often speak about multi-layered
compositions, long interpolations, and omissions of sections in the
middle of the text (that is, in the middle of a column), but the technical
aspects of such activities have not been discussed.
24
This lack of attention
is understandable, since before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
realia of the writing procedure were far beyond the scholarly horizon.
Accordingly, an assumption of multi-layered texts was usually judged
on internal literary grounds only and not on their likelihood with regard
to the realia of scribal activity. This pertains to all assumed layers in texts
that had been superimposed on earlier texts, for example, a
Supplementary Hypothesis in the Torah and elsewhere, the multi-
layered composition of Deuteronomy, the assumed intervention of the


24
An exception is the analysis of Lohfink, to be quoted below. For the New Testament,
see M. Frenschkowski, Der Text der Apostelgeschichte und die Realien antiker
Buchproduktion, in The Book of Acts as Church History. Apostelgeschichte als Kirchengeschichte
(ed. T. Nicklas and M. Tilly; BZNW 120: Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 87107. In yet another
instance, Schmidt and Seybold based their literary judgment on the realia of writing in
scrolls, although in this particular instance the description of the scribal aspects is very
questionable. H. Schmidt was quite advanced for his time when suggesting in 1948, when
the scrolls were hardly known, that segments which he considered to be out of place in
Habakkuk (Hab 1:2-4, 12-13; 3:18-19) were once written in the free spaces at the beginning
and end of the scroll: Ein Psalm im Buche Habakuk, ZAW 62 (1950) 5263 (completed in
1948 and published in 1950). According to Schmidt, in a similar way the alphabetical psalm
at the beginning of Nahum as well as Isaiah 12 were inserted into the text from the margin.
The suggestion for Habakkuk was accepted with changes by K. Seybold, Nahum Habakuk
Zephanja (Zrcher Bibelkommentare 24,2; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991) 47. However,
as a rule there would not have been room for these verses at the beginning and end of the
scroll. More importantly, if the sections are considered out of place in the book (thus
Schmidt), why would someone have written them in the margins in the first place, and
then subsequently moved them into the running text? These problems were discussed at
length by B. Huwyler, Habakuk und seine Psalmen, in Prophetie und Psalmen, Festschrift
fr Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. B. Huwyler et al.; AOAT 280; Mnster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2001) 23159. Among other things, Huwyler highlighted the methodological
problem of identifying different non-consecutive sections as organic parts of a Psalm, then
assuming that they were written in segments in the margin and inserted as a non-
consecutive text in the running text. It would have been more logical to assume that these
segments had constituted one coherent psalm all along.
I cannot claim to have seen all the relevant studies; my judgment is based on a selection
of commentaries, Introductions, and monographs, in addition to such summaries as R. N.
Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1987).
WRITING OF EARLY SCROLLS 11


Deuteronomist in the historical books and Jeremiah, etc. The assumption
pertains also to the addition in the middle of the text (that is, column) of
chronologies, genealogies, and hymns, such as those of Hannah and
Jonah, to be discussed below.
To be true, unconsciously the scholarly perception is probably
influenced more by modern writing habits than the realia of ancient
scrolls. One thinks probably less in terms of the complications of writing
in ancient scrolls than modern Bible editions, at one time those of van
der Hooght, Letteris, and others, and now the Biblia Hebraica series. The
modern mind, especially in the computer age, has become used to the
ease with which one inserts changes into the text in split seconds. In
earlier centuries, it was equally convenient to use cut-and-paste
techniques with paper. Therefore, even the modern scholar, who knows
that in the ancient world everything was different, sometimes does not
realize that it was simply impossible to add or delete a section in the
middle of a column. Continuing this line of thought ad absurdum, we
should not imagine that an ancient scroll of the Torah or Joshua looked
anything like P. Haupts multi-colored edition named the Polychrome
Bible
25
or Regenbogenbibel.
26

I have little doubt that in all mentioned instances (among them,
paragraphs af below) an earlier text was indeed changed or expanded
towards the present form of MT. However, I submit that we should now
take an additional step in trying to understand how these changes were
inserted while using recently gained knowledge about the copying of
manuscripts. An analysis of this type is meant to enrich literary research.
I submit that the shape of the earliest biblical scrolls did not differ
much from that of the Qumran scrolls (with the possible exception of
their length) and that therefore most rewriting was not superimposed on
existing scrolls. From a technical point of view, it would have been very
hard, if not impossible, to insert, for example, the story of Judah and
Tamar (Genesis 38) into a pre-existing scroll of Genesis or of the Joseph
cycle, or to add Hannahs or Jonahs hymn to existing scrolls of Samuel
and Jonah (or the Minor Prophets). More in detail:


25
P. Haupt (ed.), The Sacred Books of the Old Testament (Leipzig/Baltimore/London:
Hinrichs/Johns Hopkins/Nutt, 18941904).
26
This edition shows the editors understanding of the complex nature of the biblical
books that could never have existed in antiquity in any visible way. In the Torah, for
example, different colors designate the sources J
1
(early, dark red) and J
2
(later, light red),
E
1
(early, dark blue), E
2
(later, light blue), JE combined (purple), P-late (brown), P-early
(regular black), H (yellow), and D (green). In addition, overstrike signifies redactional
additions.
12 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

a. Most scholars believe that the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis
38 was originally not an integral part of the Joseph cycle. Scholars also
agree that Hannahs hymn was attributed to her in the form of a prayer
(at least in MT) by someone who thought that this pre-existing Psalm of
thanksgiving was appropriate to the context. By the same token, a pre-
existing thanksgiving hymn of the individual has been made into a
prayer in the mouth of Jonah in chapter 2. In my view, these three
chapters could not have been inserted into existing scrolls, but were
rather added when new scrolls were created on the basis of earlier ones.
b. We refer not only to separate units as the ones mentioned above,
but also to non-consecutive layers in biblical books. For example,
following the Deuteronomy commentary of Steuernagel from 1900,
27

modern scholars distinguish between several compositional layers in
that book. Steuernagel himself distinguished between a stratum in which
the speaker turns to an addressee in the singular and one turning to
addressees in the plural. In addition, he identified a layer of toebah laws
(18:10-12; 22:5; 23:19; 25:13-16a) and one of laws of the elders (17:2-7, 8-
13; 19:3-7, 11-12; 21:1-8, 13-22; etc.). Furthermore, according to
Steuernagel, sundry layers of additions are visible in this book: among
them various legal additions, such as those stressing the importance of
priests (18:1, 5; 21:5; 26:3-4) and paraenetic additions (several sections in
chapters 28, 29, and 30). One further recognizes a late layer requiring
changes in the law due to the expanded borders of Israel in the
centralization of the cult (12:20-24) and the law of asylum (19:8-10).
28

Finally, the kernel of the book was expanded with various pericopes,
such as the poems in chapters 32 and 33.
c. The multi-layered story of Exodus 24 contains three fragments of
accounts of Moses ascent to Mt. Sinai. The three versions reflect different
descriptions of the ascent of Moses, once alone (vv 2-8), once together
with Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel (vv 9-
11), and once with Joshua (vv 12-15). If the story was composed layer
upon layer, the base story was twice rewritten by two different
editors/scribes.
29



27
C. Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua (HAT; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1900) iii ff.
28
Not every layer uncovered in Deuteronomy necessarily requires the assumption of a
separate scroll, since an early editor may have inserted corrections of different types in a
single scroll.
29
Alternatively, according to the documentary hypothesis in its classical formulation,
someone combined parts from three different sources: vv 2-8 (J ?), vv 9-11 (E ?), vv 12-15
(P?).
WRITING OF EARLY SCROLLS 13


d. The book of Jeremiah underwent a complicated process of
rewriting, probably being expanded in one of its last stages from a
shorter text (reflected in 4QJer
b
and 4QJer
d
as well as in the LXX) to a
longer one (MT).
30
Alternatively, the long edition was abbreviated to the
short one. This process of expansion or abbreviation apparently took
place in the mind of an editor, and not in the form of corrections to an
existing scroll.
e. The Elohistic copyist/editor of the second and third books of
Psalms (Psalms 4283, but not 8489) corrected at least the divine
names,
31
if not more, while replacing each hwhy with yhla. The changes
were probably made during the writing of a new scroll, not through the
crossing out of words in an existing scroll, and the writing of the new
ones above the deletion.
f. The book(s) of Joshua-Judges, which underwent a very complicated
editorial process, contain(s) long Deuteronomistic sections which should
be considered additions when compared with the presumed original
book. For example, the introductory chapters and framework of the
individual stories in Judges as well as a layer of rewriting in Joshua
including several speeches and the pericope Josh 8:30-35 (the erection of
an altar on Mt. Ebal) were added only at a later stage. Presumably, the
Deuteronomist must have had at his disposal an older version of Joshua-
Judges. He created his new version in a new scroll, as it would have been
impossible to insert these changes in an existing scroll.
We now turn to the implications of the analysis so far. If the preceding
description holds true, in early times the content of the biblical books
could have changed with the writing of each new scroll. Continuing this
line of thought, if so many scrolls were circulating, what was the
typological relation between them? Was the transmission complex, that
is, scribes could rewrite just any copy on which they laid their hands
(model 1)? In this case, one could speak of parallel transmission or
parallel copies. Or was the transmission relatively simple with each new
scroll based directly on the preceding one, in linear transmission (model
2)? One need not necessarily decide between the two models, since there
is also room for their co-existence.
32
When the merits of the two models


30
See TCHB, 31349.
31
Cf. e.g. changes made in Psalm 53 as compared with Psalm 14 (14:2 = 53:3; 14:4 = 53:5;
14:6 = 53:6; 14:7 = 53:7).
32
In that case, one should imagine the creation of both parallel copies and copies
displaying a linear transmission.
14 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

are compared, the authoritative status of scrolls created using one of the
two procedures needs to be assessed as well.
According to model 1, an early book was rewritten independently by
any number of scribes whose versions should be considered parallel to
one another and possibly even equally authoritative.
33
In this scenario,
an early copy of a biblical book was completed by editor 1, and was
rewritten independently, possibly in different localities, by both
editor/scribe 2 and editor/scribe 3, etc. In this model, there could be any
number of related, parallel books in the same or different localities. In the
reality of this first model, the term parallel designates that every
scribe/editor could have rewritten almost any scroll, without taking into
consideration the content of other scrolls. As a result, at any given time
scrolls of different content were circulating (this description pertains to
relatively large differences in content, not to differences created during
the course of scribal transmission).
The point of departure of model 2 is a production line of a biblical
book, created in a linear way, stage after stage. In this model, the creation
of editor/scribe 1 formed the basis for the edition of editor/scribe 2,
which, in its turn was the basis for a creation by editor/scribe 3. In this
model, there is no room for parallel versions.
Both abstract models have their internal logic, and therefore the only
way to decide between these options is to see whether one of them is
supported by textual evidence.
34
The main question for discussion is
whether we can detect among the early textual witnesses any proof of
the existence of two or more parallel versions of a biblical book, differing
in matters of content. All textual witnesses differ in details created
during the course of the textual transmission, but are there differences
that require the assumption of independent writing or rewriting of a text
unit? In other words, is there a chapter or part of a chapter of a biblical


33
Possibly, within this large group of scrolls, one scroll or production line was more
authoritative than the others.
34
However, as a rule, scholars formulated their views on the development of the biblical
books without connection to textual finds. Criticism against this practice was voiced by R.
Lohfink, Deuteronomium und Pentateuch, Zur Stand der Forschung, in idem, Studien
zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III (SBAB 20; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1955) 1338 (21). According to this scholar, Wellhausen and
Steuernagel described the early copies of Deuteronomy as parallel editions subsequently
combined into one opus, Noth described the development of Deuteronomy as fragments
combined into a single edition, while others assume that a single kernel was expanded with
various additions. The definition of these three models has been transferred from the study
of the Torah (the documentary hypothesis, the fragments theory, and the supplementary
hypothesis).
WRITING OF EARLY SCROLLS 15


book known in alternative formulations? It seems to me that such
evidence cannot be found, and therefore all differences between the
textual witnesses must have resulted from a linear development, mainly
the creation of a long text from a short one or vice versa. Focusing on the
largest differences among textual witnesses, it seems that the long and
short texts of MT (= 4QJer
a,c
) and the LXX (= 4QJer
b,d
) in Jeremiah, as
well as in Ezekiel, Joshua, and the story of David and Goliath indicate a
linear development from short to long or long to short versions.
35

Further, there is no clear evidence in favor of parallel versions in any one
book. Due to the absence of convincing evidence in favor of the first
model, I opt for the second one, assuming linear development in the
writing and rewriting of biblical books. This linear development took
place as long as the editors/scribes were involved in creating the last
stages of the biblical books, and not merely in their textual
multiplication. However, not all compositions developed in the same
way, and in the case of the Qumran sectarian writings, the situation is
less clear, as several of the copies of the sectarian compositions may
indeed reflect parallel formulations (model 1).
We now continue our analysis of the early development of the biblical
books. The assumption of linear development may provide the best
explanation for the textual evidence, but it also creates new problems,
and needs to be thought through from all directions. We need to give
attention to the conditions under which an editor/scribe could have
rewritten an earlier scroll, to be revised in a later generation. How did
this person gain access to the earlier scroll? Our description almost
necessitates the further assumption that all rewriting took place in one
location, possibly a central one, where books were written, deposited,
and rewritten. Otherwise it cannot be explained how any editor-scribe
could continue the writing of his predecessor. The only such place I can
think of would be the temple. This center presumably had sufficient
authority to prevent the writing of rival versions elsewhere.
If books were constantly rewritten, we should also ask ourselves what
happened to the earlier copies, that is, the ones preceding the rewritten
version. It was the intention of the person creating that rewritten
composition that it was to replace the earlier one(s), which, as far as the
author of the rewritten composition was concerned, had become
superfluous. He created what he intended to be the final version, but
likewise when the earlier versions were put into writing, they, too, were
meant to be final. It is thus necessary to assume that upon its completion,


35
See the detailed analysis in TCHB, 31349.
16 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

each formulation in the chain of such formulations was considered final
and was possibly distributed and became authoritative. But when a new
formulation was created and circulated, the previous one(s) could no
longer be taken out of circulation. In any given period, therefore, several
different copies of certain biblical books must have been circulating.
36

Therefore, even at a late period such as the time of the LXX translation or
that of the Qumran corpus, different literary formulations were
circulating. As a result, the Qumran corpus included both 4QJer
a,c
(=
MT), which probably had the imprimatur of the Jerusalem spiritual center
in the last centuries before the Common Era, and 4QJer
b,d
(= LXX) which
must have been authoritative at an earlier period.
We surmised that the literary activities described above could have
taken place only in a central place, where these books were deposited.
37

Our suggestion that Scripture books were deposited in the temple no
longer needs to remain abstract, as it is supported by evidence in
Scripture and elsewhere. E.g., Samuel deposited a binding document in
the temple: Samuel expounded to the people the rules of the monarchy
(hkwlmh fpm), and recorded them in a document that he deposited before
the Lord (1 Sam 10:25). The clearest proof for the depositing of books in
the temple is probably the story of Josiahs discovery of a copy of the
Torah in the temple, which formed the basis of his reform (2 Kgs 22:8;


36
This description is based on the evidence of the last pre-Christian centuries, but in
earlier times the situation may have been different. Possibly in those earlier centuries,
scrolls were rarely distributed, while the evidence shows that in later periods this was the
case. See further the next footnote.
37
Thus already N. Lohfink in an impres