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

BRENT A. STRAWN 143
none of the biblical manuscripts betray sectarian variants according to
him. 141 Ulrich has used this data, with reference to the biblical scrolls
from Qumran, to argue for their centrality, reliability, and representative
nature within Early Judaism in general and thus, more specifically, for the
text-critical enterprise. Note:
They may not be dismissed as “sectarian” or “vulgar” texts, because they
were not composed by the Qumran community but were mainly imported
from Jerusalem and elsewhere (or copied faithfully at Qumran), and
because they do not show any “sectarian” variants.…Thus, unless one can
for a certain aspect explain why it is not the case, the Qumran scriptural
evidence is generally applicable for the text and canon [better: collection]
of late Second Temple Palestinian Judaism. 142
Leaving aside the questions (still live, I think) of various scrolls’ points of
origin and possible importation, one wonders if, in fact, the excerpted
manuscripts provide the “certain aspect” that Ulrich allows might challenge
his conclusions, at least at a particular juncture or two. As argued
above, the excerpted manuscripts are a kind of “‘nonbiblical’ ‘biblical’
scroll.” They further complicate these categories and they, too, do not
witness sectarian variants as defined by Ulrich. And yet, their order and
form, as well as the mutually dependent issue of their function reveals
them to be “sectarian”—if that is defined according to functional categories
of use, reading, and reception within the Qumran community
141. See, e.g., Ulrich, “The Absence of Sectarian Variants,” passim; and idem, “Our
Sharper Focus,” 12–13. In the latter essay (12n38), Ulrich’s formulation is open: “It is
an immense field, of course, and I do not claim, so early after final publications, that I
have understood perfectly every possible example. To my knowledge, however, no one
has adduced from the scrolls evidence acceptable to other scholars favoring sectarian
activity of any moment.” It is important to recall that Ulrich does not accept Tov’s theory
of “Qumran scribal practice,” which would, if allowed, constitute possible evidence
for sectarian activity, if not actual sectarian variants/variance. Perhaps we should also
mention Paulson Pulikottil’s work, Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran: The Case of the
Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsa a (JSPSup 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), who
attempts to make the case that the differences between 1QIsa a and the other witnesses
are best explained not simply as the result of scribal error, interpretive reading, or linguistic
peculiarity, but as reflective of the scribe(s)’s close reading of Isaiah and correlate
concern to explicate and exegete Isaiah more accurately. Cf. Talmon, “DSIa as a
Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah,” ASTI 1 (1962) 62–72; repr. in
Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), 116–26. Again, one must reckon with a continuum
of document-types at Qumran, with composition and transmission ideal poles that
are actually blurred at many points and in manifold ways (see §2 above).
142. Ulrich, “Qumran and Canon,” 62; cited with the editorial addition in idem, “Our
Shaper Focus,” 10. Similarly, idem, “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” passim, esp. 85.