The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

150 A NEW EDITION OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
work was loudly denounced at the time as heretical, it was not long
before biblical scholars began to adopt his methods. 3
Fifty years ago, a second great discovery of texts of the Hebrew Bible
that differ from MT took place. This discovery—by the shores of the Dead
Sea—eventually encompassed the eleven caves of Qumran and yielded over
two hundred biblical manuscripts, most in fragmentary condition. The
biblical texts from Qumran have revitalized the modern study of the text
of the Hebrew Bible. Not only have the Qumran Scrolls produced new
readings, but, perhaps more important, they also share numerous readings
with variants in SP and LXX, demonstrating that in many places SP and
LXX accurately represent ancient Hebrew biblical texts. The intricate pattern
of agreements and disagreements among MT, SP, and LXX has taken
on a new dimension in the light of the Qumran Scrolls, because now we
must reckon with the demonstrable antiquity of many of these agreements
and disagreements. In the light of the Qumran Scrolls, the textual criticism
of the Hebrew Bible has experienced a rebirth of interest and activity. 4
In the last few years, the biblical manuscripts from the richest source,
Qumran Cave 4, have been published in scholarly editions in Discoveries
in the Judaean Desert. 5 With the publication of the biblical scrolls complete,
it is worthwhile to assess the importance of the new textual data and to
consider how the field of textual criticism might proceed from here. The
new readings and the new understandings of old readings (particularly
from SP and LXX) have transformed the field; yet a question that has
not been adequately addressed is what textual critics ought to do with
them. In the cases where we can ascertain better readings of the Hebrew
text, should these be lumped with the inferior or secondary readings in
the margins of editions of MT—as is currently the practice in scholarly
editions of the Hebrew Bible—or is it possible to produce a new critical
edition that will incorporate these better readings into the text itself, that is,
3. See Bishop Brian Walton’s defense of textual criticism in his response to critics
of the London Polyglot: The Considerator Considered: Or, A Brief View of Certain
Considerations Upon the Biblia Polyglotta, the Prolegomena and Appendix Thereof (London:
Roycroft, 1659; repr. in vol. 2 of Henry J. Todd, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the
Right Rev. Brian Walton [London: Rivington, 1821]). On the rise of textual criticism of
the Hebrew Bible, see Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Textual Criticism of the
Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth,” JBL 102 (1983): 365–99, esp. 365–79.
4. Goshen-Gottstein, “Rise, Decline, Rebirth,” 386–99. See also the superb recent
introductions to the field by Peter Kyle McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the
Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); and Emanuel Tov, Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
5. Eugene Ulrich et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (DJD 12; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1994); Eugene Ulrich et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, Kings (DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995).