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% |
| Proto-MT | Pre-Sam | Close to Hebrew of LXX | Non-Aligned |
| 45% | 5% | 5% | 45% |
Fourth Edition (pp 135-136)
Torah
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.
| 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% |
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.
I ask how E. Tov's analysis does or does not comport with a claim by R. E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus... 2006, page 1, that "...the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars at Alexandria...."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what source you are referring to, but it seems that that date range may refer to the Septuagint. Namely, when it was translated. If that is the case, then those dates are the consensus view, and I'd imagine Tov would be in agreement.
DeleteTov would completely disagree with that date range for the "composition" of the Pentateuch in Hebrew since some of the manuscripts from Qumran date to the third century (some claim that some of the paleo-Hebrew texts which are mostly copies of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy are even older). All of these manuscripts are copies, not originals. Thus, if a copy of one of these books dates to the third century, then the original must be earlier.
Hope this helps.
Thank you. I completely agree, and I wanted a reality check. R. E. Gmirkin in subsequent books actually claims the Hebrew Torah was composed in Alexandria, imbued with concepts from Plato.
DeleteWhat do you think about the division described in 1QIsaa by Kipp Davis in this video https://youtu.be/qH-9byDf7p8 (starts at 17:13)
ReplyDeleteI'll attempt a brief reply. Kipp is right to point out that 1QIsaa is clearly divided into two halves. Three lines are left blank at the bottom of column 27. Scholars describe this feature as the "bifurcation of 1QIsaa". In addition to the blank lines, scholars have also pointed out the scroll is bifurcated paleographically and orthographically. Now notice where the scroll is bifurcated: exactly in half. The division occurs at the end of column 27 and the scroll has 54 columns of inscribed text. Furthermore, column 27 ends one piece of parchment and column 28 begins a new piece.
DeleteSo what does all this mean? I do not think that this is evidence that Isaiah originally existed as two separate literary books. I think this is highly unlikely. Rather, I think the bifurcation along, with other evidence, indicates that the first half of 1QIsaa was copied from a scroll that only contained chs 1-33. The second half was copied from a scroll that only contained chs. 34-66. The reason why these exemplars only contained half of the book is uncertain, but given the fact that the bifurcation divides the book in half, I'd say that the reason had more to do with economics and pragmatics. Smaller scrolls are cheaper, easier to transport, easier to handle, less fragile, and easier to store.