Emanuel Tov and His Evolving Categories for the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls

Emanuel Tov is the most well-known textual critic of the Hebrew Bible and for good reason. Under his leadership, thirty-three volumes of the authoritative series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD) were published in less than twenty years. Before his tenure, only seven volumes were published in nearly forty years. Despite this impressive feat, Tov is probably most well-known for his work Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

The book is now in its fourth edition, and it is the go-to work for those interested in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. One aspect of the fourth edition, among many, worth discussing is his categorization of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. A comparison of these categories across his four editions shows a certain evolution in how he views the text of the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple period.

First Edition (pp 114-117)

QSP	Proto-MT	Pre-Sam	Close to Hebrew of LXX	Non-Aligned
20%	60%	5%	5%	10%

 

Second Edition (pp 114-117)

QSP	Proto-MT	Pre-Sam	Close to Hebrew of LXX	Non-Aligned
20%	35%	5%	5%	35%

 

Third Edition (108-110)

Torah

Proto-MT	Pre-Sam	Close to Hebrew of LXX	Non-Aligned
48%	11%	2%	39%

 

Rest of Scripture

Proto-MT	Close to Hebrew of LXX	Non-Aligned
44%	7%	49%

 

Total

Proto-MT	Pre-Sam	Close to Hebrew of LXX	Non-Aligned
45%	5%	5%	45%

 

Fourth Edition (pp 135-136)

Torah

Proto-MT	MT-SP Block	Pre-Sam	Close to Hebrew of LXX	LXX-SP Block	Non-Aligned
2%	28%	9%	2%	27%	32%

 

Rest of Scripture

MT-Like	MT-LXX Block	Close to Hebrew of LXX	Non-Aligned
22%	16%	5%	57%

 

Total

Proto and semi-MT	MT and LXX Block	MT-SP Block	Pre-Sam	Close to Hebrew of LXX	LXX-SP Block	Non-Aligned
13%	9%	13%	4%	4%	12%	45%

 

Observations
Observation #1: The category, Qumran Scribal Practice, was a group of texts united by a distinctive orthography and morphology. These texts, however, did not share a textual background, so Tov eliminated this category in his third edition (see 3rd ed., 110). The elimination of this category caused the non-aligned and proto-MT categories to increase by 10% each.

Observation #2: The statistics of the proto-MT category and the non-aligned category have changed most drastically. Tov has not been completely clear on the qualifications for the categorization of these manuscripts. For example, he describes a non-aligned text as one that is “not exclusively close to MT, LXX, or SP.” They are inconsistent in aligning with MT, SP, and LXX while preserving unique readings (3rd ed., 109). This description of the non-aligned category lacks precision. At what point does a text morph from being proto-MT or MT-like to being non-aligned?

Despite this lack of precision, it is clear that Tov’s proto-MT, and even his semi-MT, categories are restrictive categories. For a text to fit into these categories, a text must align closely with the MT even regarding its orthography. If a text deviates orthographically from the MT, it most likely becomes non-aligned as in the case of 1QIsaa. The opposite is true with the non-aligned category. It is by definition, extremely broad since these manuscripts are joined together not by a common denominator of shared readings but by the simple fact that they disagree with the other texts (MT, SP, and LXX). Over time, Tov’s proto-MT category has become more restrictive while the non-aligned category has become broader. This detail has led to a dramatic decrease in those texts labeled proto-MT texts and a dramatic increase in those texts labeled non-aligned.

Observation #3: A superficial survey of the above statistics shows that the fourth edition has more categories than the first three. The reason for this is that in earlier versions, texts that were equally close to the MT and SP were categorized as MT. Similarly, texts equally close to MT and LXX were understood as proto-MT (3rd ed., 108). The MT, however, in the fourth edition, is no longer the default text in the categorization of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. If a text agrees with the MT and the SP, it is labeled MT-SP. If a text agrees with the MT and LXX, it is labeled MT-LXX. Moreover, Tov now differentiates between proto-MT and semi-MT texts. Proto-MT texts are more closely aligned with the MT than semi-MT texts. Overall, the addition of more categories has led to a further decrease in those texts labeled proto-MT.

Observation #4: Since 1992, more manuscripts are included in Tov’s statistics. For example, Tov understood 4QRPc-e (Reworked Pentateuch) to be non-biblical in the first two editions, but beginning in the third edition, these manuscripts are categorized as non-aligned. The statistics in the fourth edition also include seventeen tefillin that do not seem to have been included in the statistics for earlier editions. Although tefillin are technically non-biblical texts (they are excerpted texts), Tov now includes them in his categorization grid. These details, likewise, have shifted the statistics away from the proto-MT and semi-MT categories.

Tracing the Evolution
Overall, the evolution of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls in Tov’s categorization grid moves away from proto-MT. The steps contributing to this movement included the increase in categories, the increase in texts now included in the statistics, and the understanding that the MT is no longer the default text in his categories. The elimination of the QSP category led to an increase in the proto-MT category in the third edition, but this type of change has been the anomaly. The evolution of Tov's categories is rather straightforward: for Tov, fewer texts are proto-MT, and more texts are now non-aligned. 

Hebrew Scribes at the End of the Line

Composing a text by hand demands an awareness of certain details that we can ignore when using a word processor. One of these details is if the next written word corresponds to the available space. At times, the space didn’t for Hebrew scribes, and when this happened, they had several ways to navigate this situation. Let’s review some of these. For more information on these practices, see Tov’s discussion in chapters 4 and 5 of his book Scribal Practices. This list depends on and derives in part from his helpful discussions.

First, scribes could utilize the margin to finish the word. This practice is not uncommon. Here is a portion of column 2 of 1QIsaa illustrating this practice.

Second, a scribe could fill in the remaining line with space fillers. The scribe of 1QIsaa resorts to using dots in 1QIsaa Col 3:6.

 

Third, a scribe at times began a word at the end of a line but didn’t finish it. Instead, the word was written in full at the beginning of the next line. Here is an example from 1QIsaa Col 2:11.

 

Fourth, it is possible that the scribe of 1QIsaa began a word and simply failed to finish it. See 1QIsaa Col 6:3.

 

Fifth, a scribe might begin a word at the end of the line and complete it on the next line. Tov states that this was a practice of scrolls written in paleo-Hebrew. 11Q1 Col 3:5, 6, 7 are examples of this.

 

Sixth, a scribe might resort to a smaller “font-size” to fit the word in the available space. See 1QIsaa Col 16:30 (the first line in the photo below).

Seventh, a scribe might write part of the word above the line. Here are some examples from 4QPsx.

 

Eighth, a scribe might cram words together leaving little space between the words. This tendency is common in 4QPsx and here in 1QIsaa Col 16:24.

Ninth, a scribe might leave bigger spaces between letters as here in 4QDeuth 1:5–7. Tov labels this device “proportional” spacing. 

 

These pictures were taken from photos found at the Leon Levy DSS Digital Library and the DSS Digital Project.