Anthony Ferguson on the ‘Non-Aligned’ Dead Sea Scrolls

Last month, I noted the completion of Anthony Ferguson’s dissertation, “A Comparison of the Non-Aligned Texts of Qumran to the Masoretic Text.” In this guest post, Anthony describes his thesis in more detail, and I hope it stirs up some discussion on this crucial topic. Anthony will write one more post on his treatment of texts preserving Psalms, a most significant datum for the entire discussion so be on the look out for it.

---

A preliminary reading of Emanuel Tov’s classification of the biblical texts from Qumran gives the impression of textual fluidity since he labels roughly 35% of the biblical texts from Qumran as non-aligned or independent. Michael Law [p. 79 here] among other scholars use Qumran to argue for a fluid text. He says:

We have seen repeatedly that the Septuagint and especially the Dead Sea Scrolls offer proof that the Hebrew Bible was not fixed before the second century CE and, perhaps more surprisingly, that many readers and users of scriptural texts before then were not bothered about it.

The Qumran texts Law refers to appear to be the non-aligned texts since this category represents the most diverse Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts of the OT from Qumran. However, Law seems to have misunderstood the nature of the non-aligned category. Not all non-aligned texts are equally non-aligned in Tov’s mind. This fact may not be immediately apparent when one first learns of Tov’s classification grid (Tov labels some texts as proto-MT, LXX, proto-S(amaritan) P(entateuch) while others are categorized as non-aligned.); yet, a brief survey of appendix 8 of Tov’s monumental work Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts found in the Judean Desert confirms it (cf. pp. 332–35 where he categorizes 57 texts [38.77 percent of the biblical-DSS] as non-aligned. A non-aligned text is defined by Tov as a text that is inconsistent in its agreement with the MT, LXX, and SP while preserving unique readings. Cf. also p. 98 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls). In Scribal Practices, some non-aligned texts are noted with a question mark (?), others with an exclamation mark (!) while others lack notation. As Tov notes, the non-aligned category contains a range of texts that are more or less aligned to the previously known witnesses. Therefore, it seemed pertinent to understand how aligned each of these texts were to the MT in order to illuminate the nature of the category. My thesis offers a major correction to the comments of Law.

The thesis of my dissertation was as follows:

Contrary to Emanuel Tov’s analysis that fifty-five texts from Qumran are exclusively identified as textually non-aligned, a more cautious analysis of each text demonstrates that once the few ambiguous texts are excluded from the category, the remaining texts can reasonably be explained as belonging to the Masoretic tradition.

One should note that I am not arguing that all of the non-aligned texts should be classified as proto-MT texts per Tov’s classification grid; that is, I am not arguing that they are close to Leningrad to the same degree that some other biblical-DSS are (e.g., 1QIsa-b), to the degree that the other Judean Desert texts are (e.g. MasLev-b), or to the degree that the Medieval Manuscripts are. Rather, I say that these texts belong to the Masoretic tradition. Classifying texts according to textual tradition, not simply as texts, is a significant methodological difference that distinguishes my approach from Tov’s. Bruno Chiesa (on p. 266 here) has already insightfully critiqued Tov for classifying texts as mere texts. In short, this classification is too specific to be helpful for the fluid/standard text debate. I agree with Chiesa.

The Non-aligned Category: A Diversity of Texts

I discovered that the non-aligned category is made up of a range of texts that align more or less with the MT. A few examples illustrate this conclusion, and thus, show that this category as a whole cannot be used as evidence of a fluid text. First, 1QIsaa is non-aligned, according to Tov, in the least “meaningful type of deviations, namely in orthography” [see p. 303 here]. An alternative orthographic profile, in my mind, is not germane to the fluid/standard text debate. This criterion should thus be set aside (a sample of Tov’s graphic representation of this text can be viewed online [PDF]). Second, 4QEzeka (4Q73) is labeled non-align by Tov and yet Sanderson (the editor of the text in DJD) notes that the orthography and text of 4Q73 is close to the MT. The text, according to my calculations, sufficiently preserves 214 words (מלכי “my king” being two words), and yet, the orthography only deviates from the MT in four places (DJD, 210) while the text only preserves three certain textual variants when compared to the MT: all are very minor. In the end, this text is actually very close to the MT even regarding orthography. Grounding a theory about the fluidity of the OT text based on a category that includes 4Q73 is untenable. Third, unlike the first two texts that differ from the MT in minor details, 4QLama (4Q111) is one of the non-aligned texts that aligns statistical least with the MT. Moreover, it contains one difference that lacks a typical scribal explanation; yet, with Cross, I argue that a deeper analysis of this text indicates that it is not far removed from the Masoretic text. Even in this instance a general relationship can be traced.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates how misleading the non-aligned category is if one hopes to use this category to substantiate the idea that the text of the OT was fluid during the Second Temple period. Some texts are actually very close to Leningrad (e.g., 4Q73) while most texts are close enough to warrant the conclusion of belonging to the Masoretic tradition. At this point, let’s revisit the comments of Law [p. 79 here]. He says:

We have seen repeatedly that the Septuagint and especially the Dead Sea Scrolls offer proof that the Hebrew Bible was not fixed before the second century CE and, perhaps more surprisingly, that many readers and users of scriptural texts before then were not bothered about it.

What does Michael Law mean by a fluid text and which Qumran texts substantiate this claim? My dissertation reasonably demonstrates that the non-aligned texts cannot unequivocally be these texts unless the fluidity Law has in mind concerns expected scribal differences. The fact that these texts generally share a high statistical relationship with the MT and the fact that most of these variants can be attributed to common scribal tendencies (e.g., mechanical errors and interpretation) indicates to me that the majority of these texts can reasonably be understood as belonging to the Masoretic tradition. (The ambiguous texts were 4Q47, 4Q49, 4Q95, and 4Q98g. These exceptions do not prove the theory of a fluid text since these texts may not be biblical. For a discussion of these texts and their biblical/non-biblical status, see the discussion of each text in my dissertation.) This conclusion calls into questions Law’s comments if, of course, he has in mind the non-aligned texts. Regardless of Law’s comments, this conclusion reveals a reasonable unity amongst the diversity of these texts. That unity may be broader than Tov’s classification gird permits, but it is, nonetheless, the tradition of the Masoretic text.

---

Anthony Ferguson finished his Ph.D. at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary under the supervision of Russell Fuller. He teaches at Gateway Seminary and California Baptist University. His publications include “The Elijah Forerunner Concept as an Authentic Jewish Expectation” in JBL vol 137 and two forthcoming book reviews to feature in SBJT and Presbyterion.