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

DONALD W. PARRY 175
2. In approximately half a dozen occasions, Josephus presents readings of
Samuel in his Antiquities that correspond with 4QSam a but are not extant
in either the MT or the LXX. In addition, Josephus, 4QSam a , and the
LXX share almost three dozen readings against those in the MT. These
numbers are significant because they indicate that Josephus used a Greek
Samuel text that was similar to the Vorlage of 4QSam a .
3. Where the book of Chronicles parallels 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, the readings
of Chronicles clearly belong to the 4QSam a rather than the
Masoretic textual tradition. 35 In The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus,
Ulrich calculates that “Chronicles never agrees with [the MT] against
4QSam a , except for [a single reading]. On the other hand, Chronicles
agrees with 4QSam a against [the MT] in 42 readings, some of which are
quite striking.” 36
4. On more than ninety occasions, 4QSam a exhibits a reading that stands
nonaligned with other ancient textual witnesses. These independent readings
may provide insight into the scribal practice of this scroll’s copyist;
they may also tell us something about the socioreligious background of
the MT, the proto-Masoretic Text, or 4QSam a . Many of these readings
are minor; others are significant.
5. 4QSam a is a significant Hebrew witness whose readings frequently depart
from the MT. A number of the departures are simple variants where both
witnesses present the correct reading. For example, in 1 Sam 28:23, the
MT has the configuration Cr)hm with the attached preposition (the
scribe of the MT always prefers the attached preposition; see 1 Sam 28:3,
23; 2 Sam 12:20), while 4QSam a reads Cr[)h]-Nm. Both are correct
readings and both have the same translational value. On other occasions
both 4QSam a and the MT share the same reading that textual critics may
label as inferior. Such is the case in 1 Sam 25:5, where the Hebrew traditions
present the superfluous reading of dwd (an explicatory plus), the
subject of the sentence already introduced in the opening coordinate
clause. Such examples, of course, could be multiplied.
6. Three principal points should be made regarding the orthographic system
of 4QSam a : 37 (a) Although 4QSam a and MT have similar orthographic
systems, 4QSam a is persistently fuller than MT, where orthographic variants
exist; (b) the orthographic system of 4QSam a corresponds in a general
way with parallel passages in Chronicles—the orthographic systems of
both show a fuller system than that of the MT; (c) the orthography of
35. Frank M. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries
in the Judaean Desert,” HTR 57 (1964): 293; idem, “The Contribution of the
Qumrân Discoveries,” 88; and Werner E. Lemke, “The Synoptic Problem in the
Chronicler’s History,” HTR 58 (1965): 349–63.
36. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel, 163.
37. For an extensive discussion of the orthographic system of 4QSam a , see the introduction
and accompanying tables in Cross, et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.XII (DJD 17).