Fetishizing the Word: Literacy, Orality and the Dead Sea Scrolls (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: The View from Qumran Samuel (2014)
Scholars of the text of the Hebrew Bible often use terms such as "fluidity" or "pluriformity" to describe the state of the biblical text in the BCE period. This article uses the textual evidence for the book of Samuel, focusing on the Qumran scrolls of Samuel, to try to give a picture of just how fluid the text of the Hebrew Bible was in the last centuries BCE. It begins by quantifying the extent of variation between the traditional Masoretic Text and the Qumran Samuel scrolls in overall terms such as the proportion of variant words. It then focuses on specific examples of variation in individual verses to clarify what sort of variants are involved. Finally, it moves to consider the implications of the fluidity of the text of Samuel for literary, historical and linguistic study and attempts to answer the question: What is a biblical book?
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 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.
1 Different Types of Exegesis in the Scrolls The first Scripture scrolls were discovered in Cave 1 seventy years ago and since then they have not ceased to enrich Bible research. Merely some of the aspects of that research were affected by the discovery of the scrolls, viz., the study of the text and language, and its exegesis, while most literary-critical problems remain untouched by the Judean Desert scrolls. Thus, the scrolls have no bearing on the issue of the distinction between Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah, as they are simply too late to be relevant to the history of the books before the third or second century BCE. We do not have the answers to many of the questions regarding the identity and origin of the scrolls, but these questions are irrelevant for most issues relating to matters of text, language, and the exegesis of small details. In my estimation , some fifteen percent of the Scripture texts were copied at Qumran,1 while the remainder were taken there by the Qumran settlers. The complete corpus reflects a multitude of approaches to the text. In addition to the Scripture texts, the members of the community also imported a large group of Bible commentaries and rewritten Bible compositions; in addition, they penned several pe-sharim at Qumran. We are talking about a Qumran corpus that included 242 different Scripture texts according to the latest count. This calculation includes tefillin and me-zuzot that previously had been excluded from the counting. However, these liturgical texts need to be included because they are as much biblical texts as the fragmentary biblical scrolls that are included. We count fragments of 210-212 biblical scrolls from Qumran together with twenty-five tefillin and seven mezuzot.2 As far as we can tell, no attention was paid to the quality or character 1 This evaluation is based on my view that fifteen percent of the Scripture texts were copied in the style of the Qumran Scribal Practice; see Emanuel Tov, Textual
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
Dead Sea Scrolls, Revise and Repeat: New Methods and Perspectives (Oct 2020)
Dead Sea Scrolls, Revise and Repeat: New Methods and Perspectives, 2020
A reexamination of the people and movements associated with Qumran, their outlook on the world, and what bound them together Dead Sea Scrolls, Revise and Repeat examines the identity of the Qumran movement by reassessing former conclusions and bringing new methodologies to the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The collection as a whole addresses questions of identity as they relate to law, language, and literary formation; considerations of time and space; and demarcations of the body. The thirteen essays in this volume reassess the categorization of rule texts, the reuse of scripture, the significance of angelic fellowship, the varieties of calendrical use, and celibacy within the Qumran movement. Contributors consider identity in the Dead Sea Scrolls from new interdisciplinary perspectives, including spatial theory, legal theory, historical linguistics, ethnicity theory, cognitive literary theory, monster theory, and masculinity theory. Edited by C Palmer, A Krause, E Schuller, and J Screnock.
Drawing on the work of Brian Stock, Pierre Bourdieu, and others, this paper argues for the cultural and symbolic significance of the textual legacy of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Building on Stock’s insights on the nuanced make-up of textual communities, Hempel challenges the widespread view of the Qumran movement as made up of a socially monolithic scribal elite. She advocates instead that we allow for the hitherto largely ignored presence of a stratum of illiterate and semi-literate members alongside a highly educated elite. The tremendous social pay-off of being associated with a substantial body of learned texts would have had an enormous impact on both rather distinct social groups as well as reinforced a shared sense of identity.