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

BRENT A. STRAWN 135
related to the biblical compositions predate Reworked Pentateuch. 111 Even so,
Ulrich has challenged Tov’s conclusions regarding Reworked Pentateuch,
positing that this composition is, in fact, a true version and variant literary
edition of the Pentateuch at Qumran. 112
The disagreement between Tov and Ulrich on Reworked Pentateuch is
symptomatic of the larger differences between these two scholars and
their respective assessments of the Qumran evidence for the history of the
biblical text. The full scope of the debate between them and how their
respective positions fit into the larger discussion lie outside the scope of
this paper. Still, a brief overview is in order; five stages or perspectives in
the research can be delineated. 113
As is well known, William F. Albright championed a theory of “local
texts” (stage or perspective 1) in which he correlated the three main textual
versions—MT, LXX, and SamP—with the development of the text in
111. On the basis of paleographical analysis, the oldest copies of the Pentateuchal
manuscripts are as follows:
Genesis: 250–150 B.C.E. (6Q1)
Exodus: 250–150 B.C.E. (4Q15, 4Q17)
Leviticus: 250–150 B.C.E. (4Q17)
Numbers: 150–100 B.C.E. (1Q3 paleo and 4Q23)
Deuteronomy: 250–150 B.C.E. (4Q28, 4Q46, 5Q1)
The dates of 4QReworked Pentateuch are, in the main, significantly later:
4QRP a : early Herodian (30–1 B.C.E.)
4QRP b : late Hasmonean (50–1 B.C.E.)
4QRP c : late Hasmonean (50–1 B.C.E.)
4QRP d : late Hasmonean (50–1 B.C.E.)
4QRP e : middle to late Hasmonean ([125]100–50 B.C.E.)
(Dates follow Brian Webster, “J. Chronological Index of the Texts from the
Judaean Desert,” in The Text from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series [ed. E. Tov et al.; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon,
2002], 351–446, esp. 358, 371–75, 378–434; cf. also Frank Moore Cross,
“Paleography,” in EDSS 2:629–34.) Of course, dates such as these are related to the
production of the scroll, not the date of the composition of the work. White Crawford
(“Reworked Pentateuch,” in EDSS 2:775–76) gives evidence for a date of composition
in the middle- to late-second century B.C.E., but indicates that such evidence is not
unambiguous and so “[t]he question of date is at the moment unresolved” (776).
112. Eugene Ulrich, “Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the
Dead Sea Scrolls,” CBQ 66 (2004): 13; idem, “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls—the
Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical
Context (ed. T. H. Lim; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 76; and idem, “The Text of
the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus,” in Congress Volume: Basel 2001
(ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 92; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 102–3.
113. See, conveniently, James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 132–34; Kristin de Troyer, “Qumran Research and
Textual Studies: A Different Approach,” RSR 28 (2002): 115–22, esp. 119; and
VanderKam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 140–47.