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. 

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.

New Dissertation on the ‘Non-Aligned’ Dead Sea Scrolls

1QIsaa, col. XXXIII

Last month, Anthony Ferguson (recent PhD graduate from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) successfully defended his doctoral thesis entitled “A Comparison of the Non-Aligned Texts of Qumran to the Masoretic Text.” Russel Fuller, Peter Gentry, and Terry Betts were on his committee, and Emanuel Tov served as the external examiner of the thesis.

Thesis and Object of Study

Ferguson defined a non-aligned text according to Tov’s and others’ definition:

[A]s [texts] exhibiting the greatest amount of diversity because they are inconsistent in their agreement with the MT, LXX, and Samaritan Pentateuch while preserving unique readings (p. 1).

In his dissertation, Ferguson analyzed the following fifty-five texts and current scholarship on them, which Tov identified as non-aligned:

Textus now Published by Brill

Brill has recently picked up the publication of Textus: A Journal on Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Here is the description:

The importance of the discipline of textual criticism received an enormous boost from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showing that the study of these ancient documents is absolutely necessary for the exegesis of the Biblical literature. Textus covers that area as well as many additional ones, pertaining to all the fields that are traditionally studied by textual critics.

To celebrate this occasion Brill has made the articles of the first issue free online. You can access them here.

The first article, "Introduction," is an editorial by Emanuel Tov, who had this to say about the new launch of the journal:

From 2018 onwards, Textus will be published by Brill Publishers with a broader mandate. The establishment of an international editorial board consisting of recognized experts in various subdisciplines of textual criticism will ensure the high quality of the studies to be published in this journal. The journal is to be published annually.

The importance of the discipline of textual criticism was enhanced greatly with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls; it was seen that the study of these ancient documents is absolutely necessary for the exegesis of biblical literature. Textus covers this area as well as many others that pertain to all the fields that are studied traditionally by textual critics:
– All the subareas relating to the text of the Hebrew Bible (Jewish and Samaritan) in antiquity, the Middle Ages, and modern times (printed editions), the Masorah, its vocalization and accents;
– The Bible texts found in the Judean Desert including manuscript studies on these texts;
– Primary and secondary translations of the Bible, each in its own cultural and linguistic environment;
– Textual analysis of words, segments, or books in Hebrew and translated Scripture;
– Linguistic studies pertaining to textual issues;
– Quotations from the Bible in nonbiblical sources;
– History of research on text-critical issues.

As always, I'm happy whenever there are new initiatives to publish work in the area of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament textual criticism. Brill's relaunch of Textus appears to be a welcomed addition.

Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research

A completely revised and expanded third edition of Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research will be published by Eisenbrauns this summer.

Publisher’s description

This handbook provides a practical guide for the student and scholar alike who wishes to use the Septuagint (LXX) in the text-critical analysis of the Hebrew Bible. It does not serve as another theoretical introduction to the LXX, but it provides all the practical background information needed for the integration of the LXX in biblical studies. The LXX, together with the Masoretic Text and several Qumran scrolls, remains the most significant source of information for the study of ancient Scripture, but it is written in Greek, and many technical details need to be taken into consideration when using this tool. Therefore, a practical handbook such as this is needed for the integration of the Greek translation in the study of the Hebrew Bible.

The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research is based on much background information, intuition and experience, clear thinking, and a solid description of the procedures followed. The author presents his handbook after half a century of study of the Septuagint, four decades of specialized teaching experience, and involvement in several research projects focusing on the relation between the Hebrew and Greek Bibles.

The first two editions of this handbook, published by Simor of Jerusalem (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3 [1981] and 8 [1997]), received much praise but have been out of print for a considerable period. This third edition presents a completely revised version of the previous editions based on the many developments that have taken place in the analysis of the Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible, and the Qumran Scrolls. Much new information has also been added.

Eisenbrauns has been involved in the marketing of the previous two editions and is proud to offer now its own completely new edition. A must for students of the Hebrew Bible, textual criticism, the Septuagint and the other ancient translations, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jewish Hellenism.

Product Details

Publisher: Eisenbrauns Publication info: Forthcoming, summer 2015 Bibliographic info: ca. xxvi + 260 pp. Language(s): English		Cover: Paper ISBN: 1-57506-328-X ISBN13: 978-1-57506-328-7 Price: $42.75

Link to order page (Eisenbrauns)

Jim Spinti tells me that there is currently a special offer:

Purchase the Tov book and Barthélemy’s Studies in the Text of the Old Testament together and Eisenbrauns will give you the Barthélemy book for 30% off. Just enter TOVETC in the “Purchase Order” field of your order when you check out.

Three Titles by Tov on Eisenbrauns Sale

Eisenbrauns features a 10-days sale on three works by Emanuel Tov on textual criticism:

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
by Emanuel Tov
Fortress Press, 2001. Cloth. English.
ISBN: 9780800634292
List Price: $55.00
Your Price: $38.45

Now available in an updated second edition, this classic will prove an indispensable addition to the scholar's library. Emanuel Tov offers extensive descriptions of the major witnesses to the text of the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew texts from Qumran, the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, the Aramaic Targumin, the Syriac translations, the Vulgate, and others.

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert
by Emanuel Tov
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah - STDJ 54
Society of Biblical Literature -SBL, 2009. Paper. English.
ISBN: 9781589834293
List Price: $49.95
Your Price: $37.46

This monograph is written in the form of a handbook on the scribal features of the texts found in the Judean Desert, the Dead Sea Scrolls. It details the material, shape, and preparation of the scrolls; scribes and scribal activity; scripts, writing conventions, errors and their correction, and scribal signs; scribal traditions; differences between different types of scrolls (e.g., biblical and nonbiblical scrolls); and the possible existence of scribal schools such as that at Qumran. In most categories, the analysis is meant to be exhaus... (more)


The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research
by Emanuel Tov
Jerusalem Biblical Studies - JBS 8
Simor, Ltd., 1997. Cloth. English.
ISBN:
List Price: $51.00
Your Price: $40.80

Don't forget to also check out Tov's online publications.

Emanuel Tov's Publications On-line

Emanuel Tov has graciously made available a large number of his publications on his website here, including his two volumes on Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Judean Desert.

Congratulations!

PhD Scholarship in OT Textual Criticism at the University of St. Andrews for 2011

The University of St. Andrews offer several PhD Scholarships in Divinity for 2011, one of which is:

The Emanuel Tov Scholarship: for a student working in the field of Text Criticism in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible

The scholarship covers tuition fees for a UK or EU student, or a contribution of around £3500 per annum towards overseas tuition fees for a student from outside the EU.

An additional stipend of £1000 per annum will be offered to the recipient for three years. The Tov scholar will be supervised by Professor Kristin De Troyer, and will provide research assistance to her.

Further information is available from Ms Margot Clement, Postgraduate Secretary mc41@st-andrews.ac.uk

The closing date for applications is January 15, 2011