223*. “Some Thoughts at the Close of the Discoveries of the Judaean Desert Publication Project,” Revised version: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism … Collected Essays, Volume 3 (2015), 289–96 (original) (raw)
Related papers
The text-critical and exegetical value of the Dead Sea Scrolls : original research
Hts Teologiese Studies-theological Studies, 2016
The discovery at wadi Qumran in 1947 by a shepherd was arguably the most significant as far as biblical texts are concerned. 1 After all, texts such as 1QIsa a are more than a millennium older than the Textus Receptus. There are conspicuous correspondences between Massoretic Text (MT) and some Dead Scrolls. At first glance, 1QIsa a seems identical to MT Isaiah; both have 66 chapters in the published volumes. However, when scrutinised, prominent differences in addition to correspondences become apparent. This contribution will take a closer look at a number of Dead Sea manuscripts and/or fragments in order to determine their linguistic and exegetical value. The article will, firstly, address textual material that is largely in agreement with the MT-1QIsa a. Secondly, fragments that are on the face of it less relevant will be discussed. The 'insignificant' fragments from the Biblical books Proverbs and Job are cases in point. Finally, highly significant textual differences, such as a fragment from Genesis 1 and one from the books of Jeremiah, will be evaluated. Methodological issues This contribution will depart from the reality of textual plurality in the pre-common era (Tov 1985). According to this point of departure, the MT is one of the textual witnesses available (Septuagint [LXX], Tgg, Pesh, etc.) but not the most important one. Even so, MT is used as a basis of comparison. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) edition is used for the Hebrew text (MT), DJD 32 for 1QIsa a and the Rahlfs pocket edition for LXX. 1.By this statement, I do not intend to belittle the Nag Hammadi discoveries. The recent announcement in the press of a new discovery in the Judaean desert is too early to evaluate. 2.It must be remembered that the original publications did not contain chapter and verse indications. 3.The scribal/copyist activity at Qumran is not comparable to the Masoretes' meticulous work. 4.Ulrich and Flint (2010:61) find evidence of two Herodian period scribes' additions. This article will analyse a number of Dead Sea manuscripts and/or fragments in order to determine their linguistic and exegetical value. The article will, firstly, address textual material that is largely in agreement with the Massoretic Text-1QIsa a is a case in point. Secondly, fragments that are seemingly less relevant will be discussed. The less helpful fragments from the Biblical books Proverbs and Job are taken as examples. Finally, highly significant textual differences, such as a fragment from Genesis 1 and one from the complicated books of Jeremiah, will be evaluated.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AFTER 75 YEARS: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED
Presbyterion, 2024
Most biblical scholars have a general knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). They are familiar with their discovery and have a general understanding of their significance. Knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, remains superficial for most laypeople and Bible scholars. Many factors contribute to this situation including the complexity of these topics and the resources available to the public which are often one sided and lack nuance. The goal of this paper is to address several popular questions concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls for a popular audience with greater depth, balance, and nuance.
2013
These two massive volumes comprise the proceedings of a conference of the same name held at the University of Vienna in February 2008. The purpose of the conference, and the proceedings volumes, in the words of the editors, is “to integrate the Dead Sea Scrolls fully into the various disciplines that benefit from the discovery of these very important texts” (vol. 1, p. x). As a result, the papers contained in these volumes are wideranging, written by specialists in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) as well as in other disciplines. The volumes will thus appeal to scholars in a variety of disciplines, including archaeology of the ancient Near East. ... In as large a collection as the editors present here, the reader should expect essays of uneven quality. But there is much in this collection to entice scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as connected disciplines
It has been over fifty years since the publication of the first volume of the Discoveries in the Judaea Desert series, and five years since the final volume in the series appeared in 2009. In this paper, I intend to problematise the official publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961–2011) according to the fourfold critique: first, literary presuppositions and the classification of texts; second, scribal presuppositions and the identification of manuscripts; third, textual presuppositions and the work of scribes; and finally, socio-religious presuppositions and the function of scriptures.
Journal for the Study of Judaism, 2013
TheDeadSea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture is a superb collection of essays that makes original contributions to the understanding of the scrolls on the 60th anniversary of their discovery. The volume focuses on progress made in research over the last decade and highlights promising areas for fiiture research. The book is highly recommended to all those interested in the DSS, the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Judaism, early Christianity, and rabbinic Judaism. It would be especially useful for graduate students in the fields listed above since it provides broad insights into recent research as well as timely advice on which questions might be most promising to pursue in the future. The book is a model for the type of rich, interdisciplinary interactions that many colleges and universities yearn to foster in the humanistic disciplines. Emanuel Tov opens the volume with a review of some aspects of the history and current status of the DfD publication project. The first section addresses "Identity and History of the Community." Florentino Garcia Martinez revisits the Groningen hypothesis and suggests that it can still help us explain the textual data from Qumran. Charlotte Hempel examines lQS 6:2c-4a and suggests that when it is read in light of CD i3:2b-3a, one must conclude that S' s use of the preposition in (indicating the existence of a larger or parent group) is a later development or interpolation in the text. Eyal Regev compares features of the Yahad with modem religious sects such as the Quakers, Shakers, Hutterites, Mennonites, and Amish in order to suggest several likely (and unlikely) characteristics of the Yahad. James VanderKam reassesses the early or prehistory of the people associated with the scrolls. He reaches the sober conclusion that we can know very little about the community described in CD 1 and finds no evidence that the Qumran group began or existed as a splinter group that broke away from the group described in CD 1 (à la the Groningen Hypothesis). Section 2a examines scriptural texts. Jonathan Ben-Dov compares scribal practices for writing the divine name in the Elohistic Psalter (Psalms 42-89) and in the DSS and suggests a common explanation for the phenomenon. Peter Flint provides a carefiil summary of non-masoretic variant readings in lQIsa'' and finds that while the majority of the 622 variants are minor and of little consequence, around ten percent (66) are significant and involve clear changes in the meaning of the text. His results overturn preliminary descriptions of lQIsa"» as an exemplar of the Proto-Masoretic text. Eugene Ulrich summarizes some contributions of the study of the DSS for understanding the Bible. If the reviewer might be so bold, I suggest that Ulrich's essay should be required reading for anyone who presumes to study the