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

138 EXCERPTED MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN
types, especially and ultimately, the MT, given the sheer dominance of
his “proto-MT” group. 122
This brings us to the fifth stage/perspective represented by Ulrich who, in
a stream of important publications, has attempted a new formulation. 123
His approach might be termed a theory of multiple literary editions. In
his work, Ulrich stresses two important points: 124 (1) in many cases,
Qumran represents our earliest textual evidence about a particular composition;
125 it is thus premature and misleading to take such early evidence
and slot it into categories that only come from later texts and the
knowledge thereof. 126 (2) It is abundantly clear from the evidence at
Qumran that many compositions existed side-by-side in variant literary
editions. The most famous example of this is probably Jeremiah, known
at Qumran in both the longer (MT) and shorter (LXX) versions (cf.
4QJer a,c [4Q70, 4Q72] and 4QJer b,d [4Q71, 4Q72a], respectively). But
there is evidence that other books probably also existed in this fashion. 127
122. Tov, Textual Criticism, 117: “At the same time, the great number of the proto-
Masoretic texts probably reflects their authoritative status.” Cf. ibid., 191. Note also
VanderKam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 143, 146, and tables 6.1 and 6.2.
123. See Ulrich, “Our Sharper Focus,” 1–24 and esp. the important essays collected
in his The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), esp. 3–120. Other important essays by Ulrich that come after the
book collection but prior to “Our Sharper Focus,” include “The Qumran Biblical
Scrolls,” 67–87; “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures,” 85–108; and “From Literature
to Scripture: Reflections on the Growth of a Text’s Authoritativeness,” DSD 10
(2003): 3–25. Note also Ulrich’s essay, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew
Scriptural Texts,” in volume one, chapter 4, of the present work. As there is some repetition
and overlap between these various essays, I have cited mostly from “Our
Sharper Focus” since it is the most recent (2004).
124. Note, e.g., these two points (but in reverse order) in Ulrich, “Our Sharper Focus.”
125. Note Eugene Ulrich, “Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament,” in The
Biblical Canons (ed. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. De Jonge; Colloquium Biblicum
Lovaniense; BETL 163; Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2003), 62:
“they [the scrolls] are the oldest, the best, and the most authentic evidence we have
for the shape of the Scriptures at the time of the beginning of Christianity and rabbinic
Judaism.…The Qumran scriptural scrolls should now become the standard criteria
for understanding and judging the Jewish Scriptures in late Second Temple
Palestinian Judaism.” Cited, with some adjustment, in “Our Sharper Focus,” 10.
126. See esp. Ulrich, “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” 70–72, 85.
127. Ulrich, “Our Sharper Focus,” 2–9 presents what he calls “clear evidence for
variant literary editions of at least six books of the twenty-four in the traditional
Hebrew Bible” (8)—namely, Exodus (4 versions: LXX, MT, SamP, and
4QpaleoExod m [4Q22]), Numbers (3 versions: MT, SamP, and 4QNum b [4Q27]),
Joshua (4 versions: LXX, MT, OL, and Josephus/4QJosh a [4Q47]), Jeremiah (2 versions:
MT and LXX), Psalms (2 versions: MT and 11QPs a [11Q5]), and Canticles
(2 versions: MT and 4QCant a,b [4Q106-107]). Ulrich argues that the evidence of the
SamP and LXX, when “restudied…with Qumran in mind,” adds seven other books
to this list: Genesis, 1 Samuel, Kings, Ezekiel, the Twelve, Proverbs, and Daniel. He