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

142 EXCERPTED MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN
excerpted, then we also cannot be sure, given the existence of the
excerpted documents (as both manuscripts and genre), that it is not
excerpted. One can only be certain, that is, about those scrolls that are
most obviously excerpted. Yet here again Ulrich’s theoretical observations
are crucial: how can one know that a scroll is excerpted and not an
early text-form? As stated above, such a decision is reached, at least in
part, only—or at least primarily—by recourse to other, fuller exemplars of
the source text, some or most of which are later than the manuscript in
question. One must argue from the most certain exemplars, that is, to less
certain ones. Given this, one must admit to a certain amount of uncertainty
with regard to texts like 4QCanta,b . At the same time, given our
limited evidence and lack of certainty due to preservation, paucity of evidence,
and so forth, one must also guard against overstating the contribution
of these texts to the compositional history of the Song of Songs. 138
There is always the chance that further evidence will come to light and
clinch one of the two options—abbreviation (Tov) or early text-form
(Ulrich)—or suggest yet a third.
2. Regardless of textual alignment or lack thereof, the existence of
excerpted manuscripts demonstrates that at least some scrolls were put to
particular uses and played specific functions. Although such uses and functions
remain somewhat elusive (see §4), it seems safe to say that the texts’
utility—to some degree at least—dictated the form and order of the text. 139
This means that the form and order of these manuscripts may be more
related to text-use and text-function than text-type, whether that is understood
as aligned à la Tov or understood as a variant edition à la Ulrich. The texttype,
that is, may be neither and, instead, a kind of third thing.
3. It is critical in this discussion to note that the excerpted manuscripts
do not manifest what Ulrich would call “sectarian variants.” 140 Indeed,
138. See at note 89 for Tov’s arguments that the selection is intentional and not accidental.
Note also that the cautions presented above could be addressed to Smelik’s
argument regarding the Ketef Hinnom rolls. Smelik believes that these rolls are forerunners
of the priestly blessing, which only later received definitive form in Numbers
6(Writings from Ancient Israel, 162). One might well ask, however, how and if Smelik’s
assumption is inherently better than the possibility that the rolls excerpt or extract
from a prior version of the blessing.
139. See the first comment (#1) immediately above; the issues are obviously intertwined.
140. See Eugene Ulrich, “The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish
Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the
Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: The British Library;
New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 179–95. See also idem, “Our Sharper
Focus,” 12–13 for the two sectarian variants that Ulrich believes can be identified with
certainty in SamP: (1) statements that God “had chosen” (rxb vs. MT’s rxby)
Mount Gerizim (cf. Deut 12:5; 14:23; 16:2; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; etc.); and (2) the reading
of “Mount Gerizim” instead of “Mount Ebal” at Deut 27:4.