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

144 EXCERPTED MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN
(sect). 143 Although I would not want to overstate the case, it seems that
one could use this data to argue against Ulrich. The excerpted manuscripts
are (functionally) “sectarian” and yet manifest no sectarian variants. It
may well be incorrect to presume, then, that “vulgar,” “non-official” manuscripts
would contain such sectarian variants. It is possible, that is (to
continue this line of thinking), that what look to be normal, official, mainstream
texts from Qumran are also, nevertheless, and despite that, sectarian
at some level(s) and, if so, because of that, not necessarily representative of all of
Early Judaism at this time. 144 Ulrich is quite right, that is, in pressing
(contra Tov?) for the priority of the Qumran data vis-à-vis later text
types. Privileging later text types can only be anachronistic as he has
thoroughly and convincingly demonstrated. But in so doing, Ulrich may
have overstated the case by neglecting the specific Qumran provenience of
these scrolls. Ulrich’s work is virtually unparalleled in demonstrating
that one must not underestimate the value of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the
history of the biblical text—that fatal mistake, made by an infamous few
soon after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, is now unconscionable
and, happily, unimaginable, thanks in large part to Ulrich. But,
at the same time, one must pay special attention to the specific location in
which these texts were found. 145 This would be to move toward a theory,
not of local texts associated with large and disparate geographical
regions, but of “hyper-local” texts, attending to their particular and, at
times perhaps, peculiar Qumran provenience. The scrolls are, after all,
manuscripts that are cultural-material artifacts and that reflect the scribal practices
and scribal ideologies of the community (dxy) within which they
143. See the insightful comments on the three different ways a text might be defined
as “sectarian” in Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 167–87. Note also George J. Brooke,
“E Pluribus Unum: Textual Variety and Definitive Interpretation in the Qumran
Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (ed. T. H. Lim; Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 2000), 107–19.
144. Cf. Ulrich’s formulation (“The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures,” 97): “The
Scriptures found at Qumran should be viewed as typical of the Scriptures possessed
and used by the various groups within Judaism unless either (1) the Qumran scriptural
scrolls are ‘sectarian’, or (2) the MT was the ‘standard biblical text’ in that period”
(emphasis mine). Ulrich’s work has thoroughly demonstrated that the second point
is not viable; the comments above, however, raise questions about the first point.
145. In my judgment, except for the handful of earliest manuscripts, which must
predate the community, and a few other exceptional cases, theories of external origin
or importation of various Scrolls must remain, to a large degree, speculative. For
example, the number of scribal hands attested at Qumran does not, by itself, clinch
an argument in favor of wide-scale importation (cf. Ulrich, “The Qumran Biblical
Scrolls,” 80–81). What is certain about these manuscripts, even the earliest ones, is
that they were found at Qumran.