the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

DONALD W. PARRY 169
form of the books. One must distinguish two senses of the word “text”:
a literary opus and the particular wording of that opus. It is the literary
opus, and not the particular wording of that opus, with which the canon
is concerned.” 5 In a second publication, Eugene C. Ulrich develops this
idea: “It was the sacred work or book that was important, not the specific
edition or specific wording of the work. In discussion of the canon,
it thus becomes important to remember that, for both Judaism and
Christianity, it is books, not specific textual forms of the books, that are
canonical.” 6
By “biblical book,” then, we refer to the sacred work itself, not the specific
version. The books known as 1 and 2 Samuel are canonized, sacred
works of Scripture, but many versions of Samuel exist that were or are
now being used by different religious groups. In antiquity, the Qumran
covenanters used 4QSam a , 4QSam b (= 4Q52), and 4QSam c (= 4Q53);
late Second Temple rabbinic authorities preferred a proto-Masoretic or
MT of Samuel; and early Christian communities preferred Greek, Latin,
Syriac, or Ethiopic translations of Samuel. The books of Samuel, of
course, are manifest in many modern languages; some are grounded
upon the Hebrew Bible; others are eclectic works.
Each of these versions, ancient and modern, was produced by one or
more individuals who were subject to their own cultural, religious, social,
and political background, which most assuredly influenced to some
degree the readings of the respective versions. Each version has its own
set of independent variant readings, no matter how minor. The great
majority of such readings were introduced into the text through scribal
transmission, although there are occasions of intentional glossing and
theological articulation.
This approach to biblical canon—that it is sacred work that is canonized
and not simply the versions of that sacred work—is agreeable to the
concepts of textual criticism; it accepts individual variant readings
belonging to extant witnesses, placing the variant or distinct readings
(when warranted) in a previously established canon. Hence, the Samuel
Post-Modern Times,” BTB 25 (1995): 56–63, esp. 58. The Ethiopian Orthodox
canon, for instance, is comprised of 81 books; see Robert W. Cowley, “The Biblical
Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today,” Ostkirchlichen Studien 23 (1974):
318–23. For a different perspective of canon as a closed list, see also William D.
Davies, “Reflections on the Mormon ‘Canon,” HTR 79:1–3 (1986), 44–66.
5. Ulrich, “The Canonical Process,” 273.
6. Eugene C. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of
Canon,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (ed. J. C. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ
11; Madrid: Editorial Complutense; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:36.