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.

Newberry Library webpage on the great polyglots

The Newberry Library in Chicago has a nice webpage introducing the great polyglot Bibles of the 16th–17th century. It gives helpful details for the Complutensian (1517), Antwerp (1571), and London (1657) polyglots with bibliography at the end. The comparison feature is a nice way to orient yourself to the layout and contents of each. Unfortunately, it looks like they only have a page from each one. Here is part of the website’s description:

The historical and cultural impact of the great polyglots is somewhat overlooked today. In large part, this is due to the fact that the massive collective effort behind these books is hidden by the printed page. This resource will draw back the curtain on the stories behind the three great polyglots in the collection of the Newberry Library: the Complutensian, the Antwerp, and the London.

In what follows, you will gain a sense of the individuals who helped create these great books.

‘The God Who Speaks’ documentary

I’ve just been alerted to the release of a new Bible documentary for Christians called The God Who Speaks. The contributors are (with one exception?) American-based Evangelical scholars, apologists, or pastors. You can buy the DVD at the website or stream it for free if you have Amazon Prime.

I haven’t watched it myself, but, from the trailer, it looks like it gives attention to the text’s transmission. (Note that Dan Wallace, Mike Kruger, and Karen Jobes are contributors.) If any readers have seen it, let us know in the comments. And happy new year!

Here’s the description from the producers:

The God Who Speaks is a 90-minute documentary that traces the evidence of the Bible’s authority through interviews with some of the world’s most respected biblical scholars. This film answers common objections about the Bible’s reliability and equips believers to confidently base their lives on the power of God’s Word.

Who Said It?

Time for another round of everyone’s favorite game, “Who Said It?” No using Google, although in this case it won’t help you anyway.

Since the Textus Receptus was overcome by the scholarly textual criticism of the 19th century, there is tenacious negative bias against the Byzantine majority text. Wherever well-known, older textual witnesses like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and even more so in combination with a papyrus, stand against the majority of minuscules, the decision against the majority text was often made easily, without seriously considering the quality of the variants in question.

One hint: it is not Maurice Robinson.

Update: Peter Montoro was correct. This is from Klaus Wachtel in the introduction to Part 1.1 of the ECM III on Acts (p. 30*).

Top Ten Posts of 2018

This year, the ETC blog has been humming, publishing more posts than in any single year since 2010. We even had legit posts on Old Testament textual criticism thanks to John! We want to say thanks to all who read, comment, email, and follow on social media. At the end of the year I like to look back and see what was most read.

Far and away, the top spot belonged to our new contributor, Elijah economical-with-the-truth Hixson, announcing the publication of the not-first-century-but-still-the-earliest fragment of Mark. Beyond this reMarkable fragment, it seems that translation news remains a topic of interest as does apologetics. Here is the full top ten list.

1. “First-Century Mark,” Published at Last? [Updated]
2. NASB Now Being Revised
3. Dan Wallace responds on (formerly) ‘First-century Mark’
4. Plan to Review and Revise the New Revised Standard Version
5. New Film: ‘Fragments of Truth’
6. Review of ‘Fragments of Truth’
7. Update on P137 (P.Oxy. 83.5345)
8. Gary Habermas on First-Century Mark
9. Evaluating Ehrman’s Comparative Argument for Textual Unreliability
10. Alan Taylor Farnes on Scribal Habits in Copies with Extant Exemplars

See you in 2019!

Another Important, Shorter Reading in the Byzantine Text

Earlier this year, I wrote about two important, shorter readings in the Byzantine text in 1 John 2.23; 3.1. I suggested that they were important because they both look to be simple omissions by parablepsis and so secondary readings. That said, I find it impossible to believe that the majority of manuscripts all independently agree in these omissions, which led me to conclude that

... in some cases, the Byzantine text goes back to a single exemplar that is not the autograph and not in agreement with our earliest extant Greek witnesses. These two cases also illustrate well the reality that no single text-type or manuscript has a corner on the original text all the time. In other words, why I’m a reasoned eclectic.

This past week I came across a similar case in John 19.3. Here is the text of vv. 2–3 in NA28

2 καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν περιέβαλον αὐτὸν 3 καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλεγον· χαῖρε ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων· καὶ ἐδίδοσαν αὐτῷ ῥαπίσματα.

2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and clothed him in a purple robe. 3 And they were coming to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands.

The evidence from the NA28 apparatus is:

1. — A D^s K Γ Δ Ψ ƒ¹ 892^s. 1241. 1424 𝔐 f q sy^p
2. καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν 𝔓^66.90 ℵ B L N W Θ ƒ¹³ 33. 565. 579. 700. ℓ 844 lat sy^h co

Unlike in the 1 John examples, here there is early support for the majority reading (A f q sy^p). But like those cases, the obvious explanation for the shorter reading is still omission caused by parablepsis (involving αὐτόν). The significance, again, is that we have here a shorter reading in the majority of manuscripts that goes back earlier but is still not likely to be original. And so, with apologies to MAR, it is yet one more reason why I am not a Byzantine prioritist.