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

BRENT A. STRAWN 139
The theories of Ulrich and Tov are the two main options currently
available and viable. 128 But how does one adjudicate between them? To
return to Reworked Pentateuch for a moment, Tov would seem to have the
advantage. We have a plethora of manuscripts relating to the Pentateuch
at our disposal (at least 91 from Qumran alone; cf. Table 5), many of
which predate the (mostly later) copies of Reworked Pentateuch. To be sure,
the latter composition does exist in multiple copies (five), but the presence
of additional, “exegetical” material in this composition seems best
interpreted as evidence that the composition is a “parabiblical” work, if
not actually “exegetical” proper along the lines of some of the other
commentary texts. 129 White Crawford may be correct when she writes,
“to the casual reader, the scroll [of 4QReworked Pentateuch] would have
looked like any other manuscript of the Torah,” 130 but given the other
Pentateuchal manuscripts—as well as those commentary texts related
to the Pentateuch—one might argue that such a surmise is incorrect. 131
continues: “Evidence from Judges, Job, and Lamentations is too sparse for certainty
but suggest[s] the possibility that these books may also be added to the list. We thus
have surviving manuscript evidence that over half of the books of the Hebrew Bible
circulated in variant literary editions at the time of the origins of Christianity and rabbinic
Judaism” (ibid., 8–9; cf. also VanderKam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, 144–45). In my judgment, not all of this evidence is equally compelling—not
even for Ulrich’s most certain examples—and so the existence of multiple literary editions
for at least some of these books is less certain and more debatable than others.
For Canticles and Psalms, see further below. For Samuel, note the alternative perspective
in Alexander Rofé , “4QMidrash Samuel?—Observations Concerning the
Character of 4QSam a ,” Textus 19 (1998): 63–74.
128. See, e.g., VanderKam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 145–47.
Talmon’s theory is not by any means defunct but is in some sense distinct because it
(helpfully and rightly) focuses on socio-religious factors that are less to the forefront
in the other perspectives.
129. See Tov and White Crawford, “364–367. 4QReworked Pentateuch b–e ,” 188,
191. Cf. White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuch,” 775: “This reworking [of the biblical
text by means of scribal intervention] consisted of exegetical additions and a differing
sequence of passages from that of the received texts.” Note esp. 4Q365 frags.
6a col. 2 and 6c; cf. 4Q158 frag. 14. See further Tov, “The Textual Status of 4Q364-
367,” 49; idem, “Biblical Texts as Reworked,” 131–34; and Sidnie A. White
Crawford, “4Q364 & 365: A Preliminary Report,” 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), 1:217–28. Note, however, that for his
part Ulrich sees additions and altered sequences as characteristic of the biblical text
in this period, not indication of nonbiblical composition (“The Qumran Biblical
Scrolls,” 74; idem, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures,” 102–3).
130. White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuch,” 775.
131. As a further piece of evidence, one might note that reconstruction (N.B.!) of
4QRP—assuming (N.B.!) it contained “Genesis” through “Deuteronomy”—would
place these scrolls among the longest at Qumran. See, e.g., White Crawford, “4Q364