QUMRAN-SCROLLS- NEO-ESSENES and THE TEACHER OF RIGHTIOUSNESS – via ArchBishop Uwe AE.Rosenkranz

The

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

&

Modern Translations of the Old Testament

harold scanlin

 

Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

WHEATON, ILLINOIS

Copyright 1993 by Harold P. Scanlin

All rights reserved

ISBN 0-8423-1010-X

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of the International Bible Society.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Scripture verses marked NEB are from The New English Bible, copyright 1970, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press.

Scripture quotations marked REB are from The Revised English Bible. Copyright 1989 by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press.

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted, 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked RSV are from the Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, copyright 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NJV are from The New Jewish Version. Copyright 1985 by the Jewish Publication Society.

Scripture quotations marked NAB are from The New American Bible. Copyright 1970, 1986 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C.

Scripture quotations marked NJB are from The New Jerusalem Bible. Copyright 1985 by Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd. and Doudleday & Co., Inc.

Contents

Dedication/Acknowledgments

Preface

Hebrew Transliterations

PART ONE

An Introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls

PART TWO

Description of Old Testament Manuscripts

Chart of Biblical Manuscripts

PART THREE

The Effect of the Dead Sea Scrolls on

Modern Translations of the Old Testament

Conclusion

Index of Biblical Passages

Bibliography

DEDICATION

To Lenore

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A work of this nature would be impossible without the cooperation of many scholars and libraries. The Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center (Claremont, California), which maintains an archive of Dead Sea Scroll photographs, generously offered access to their collection, as well as to materials from the “Dead Sea Scroll Inventory Project,” directed by Dr. Stephen A. Reed.

Others who made material available for this book are Dr. John C. Trever, who was the first to photograph the scrolls from Cave 1, and the Israel Antiquities Authority, who granted permission to reproduce a number of the scrolls. I am grateful to Nathan R. Jastram, Sidnie Ann White, and James R. Davila for granting permission to obtain copies of their dissertations. Dr. Davila also provided manuscripts of two of his forthcoming articles.

The committees responsible for the Bible translations considered here have devoted countless years to their task, often without public acclaim and little or no financial reward, but always with the sincere desire to render the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament in an intelligible and faithful translation.

Dr. Philip W. Comfort, of Tyndale House, through his encouragement and patience, made it possible to incorporate the latest information on the scrolls. My special thanks goes to my wife, Lenore, who endured the clutter of books, papers, and photographs over many years, and can at last share in the satisfaction of seeing this project completed.

Preface

In recent years the popular press has provided many accounts of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the controversy surrounding their discovery and publication. Sensational accusations of deception and suppression, and even competing claims made by respectable scholars, have both excited and confused the public. Yet the diverse and complex nature of the evidence has sometimes made it difficult for sincere, open-minded readers to get to the heart of the issue. One of the most frequently asked questions is how do these discoveries affect the Old Testament? The writer hopes that this volume will offer a small contribution to this one aspect of Dead Sea Scroll study and to assess its impact on Bible translation.

The present work is designed to introduce the reader to the study of the text of the Old Testament found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the impact these remarkable discoveries have had on recent Bible translations. The opening chapters bring together information on these scrolls that is scattered over a wide variety of sources. The list of biblical manuscripts is complete and their contents, with a few exceptions, are described herein. The significant variant readings among the Dead Sea Scrolls that have been taken into account by Bible translators are broadly representative, although not exhaustive.

In a work such as this there are bound to be some errors, and further examination of the manuscripts themselves may provide additional identifications or reassignments of some fragments. The author invites contributions to correct and enhance this study.

HEBREW TRANSLITERATIONS

Consonant

ʾ

א

b

בּ ב

g

גּ ג

d

דּ ד

h

ה

w

ו

z

ז

ch

ח

t

ט

y

י

k

כּכ

l

ל

m

מ

n

נ

s

ס

ʿ

ע

p

פּ פ

ts

צ

q

ק

r

ר

s

שׂ

sh

שׁ

t

תּ ת

Vowel


 

a

ָ ַ

e

ֵ ֶ

e

ְ

i

ִ

o

ֹ וֹ

u

ֻ וּ

PART ONE

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Secret agents using assumed names, clandestine meetings under cover of night behind enemy lines, switching cabs to avoid being followed—these sound like things in a spy novel, but they all happened in conjunction with the discovery, sale, and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has captured the popular imagination and filled the pages of the world’s newspapers with reports of alleged illegal deals, suggestions that the scrolls will shake the foundations of both Judaism and Christianity, hints of secret plots to suppress evidence—all this, combined with accusations of scholarly bickering and monopolizing texts for personal gain. It may have been inevitable that a discovery made just before the emergence of the modern state of Israel along one of its borders would have been steeped in controversy. The most recent controversy surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls focuses primarily on the lengthy delays involving the publication of the scrolls and the related question of the motivations behind the delays. Such a situation can give rise to the suspicion that there is some plot by the people in charge to suppress documents that they find embarrassing.

This is not the first time that manuscript discoveries in the Dead Sea region have been reported. Origen (who died c. a.d. 250), as reported by the famous early church historian Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 6.16), was reported to have found several different versions of Old Testament texts in the region around the Dead Sea. It is not possible to confirm Eusebius’s report; but if it is true, such a discovery could have been the major factor that motivated Origen to evaluate the differences between the Hebrew text and a variety of Greek translations known in his day. Origen spent many years preparing a compilation and evaluation of the manuscripts to which he had access. His work is known as the Hexapla because it was arranged generally in six (hexa) parallel columns, which included the Hebrew text, a transliteration into Greek characters, up to five different Greek versions, and Origen’s reconstruction, marked with a system of symbols to designate Greek pluses and minuses in comparison to the Hebrew text.

There was another report of a manuscript discovery in the area of the Dead Sea about the beginning of the ninth century. This discovery may be related to the origins of the Karaites, a Jewish group who relied solely on the Hebrew Bible as the authority for their belief and practice, rejecting the Oral Torah of Rabbinic Judaism, which was codified primarily in the Mishnah and Talmud. The Karaites believed that their doctrinal claim was supported by the discovery of these documents.

We will probably never know if these early reports of manuscript discoveries along the western shores of the Dead Sea are true. If the reports are true, the discoveries played a decisive role in the history of the Old Testament text. We do know that the Dead Sea Scrolls have brought about an equally momentous revolution in the study of the history of the Old Testament text and the religious context of the cradle of Christianity. Everyone associated with the first discovery of the scrolls immediately recognized their revolutionary importance. It is no wonder that the story of discovery and publication should be surrounded by controversy.

The details of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the surrounding controversy have been frequently reported. Nonetheless, it is helpful to outline the important events here, focusing especially on those related to the discovery of the biblical manuscripts.

At the outset we need to keep in mind that the scrolls cannot be lumped together either geographically or by literary type. The majority of the documents popularly called the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in a single general location near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. In all, eleven caves were found in the cliffs nearby an ancient settlement which we now know as Qumran. Of these eleven caves, ten have yielded written documents. Several of the key people mentioned in the chronological outline of events given on page 5 have published their experiences. As one might expect, there are some contradictions among the accounts, but a fascinating story emerges.

Archbishop Samuel (1966) recounts his experiences in dealing with Kando for the purchase of important scrolls from Cave 1. He also tells about efforts to resell the scrolls in his possession, ultimately leading to their purchase by Yigael Yadin in response to a brief classified ad appearing in the Wall Street Journal in June 1954. Yadin (1957) also recounts this transaction, as well as the earlier negotiations on behalf of Hebrew University and the Israeli government between his father, Eliezer Sukenik, and those who were offering scrolls for sale. Dr. Harry Orlinsky (1974: 245–256) tells about his involvement in the 1954 negotiations as the scholar who authenticated the antiquity and value of the scrolls purchased by Yadin. John Trever (1965a) explains the role of scholars affiliated with the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (ASOR) in authenticating the major scrolls in the possession of Archbishop Samuel. William F. Albright, the great archaeologist and biblical scholar from Johns Hopkins University, and Millar Burrows, a general editor of the Revised Standard Version committee, were among the first to recognize the enormous significance of the scrolls. Trever, a scholar in residence at ASOR Jerusalem in the late 1940s, was an expert photographer who took the photos of the scrolls under the most trying circumstances. His photographs are still used today. The more recent controversy regarding the lack of progress in publishing the scrolls is documented in the pages of the journal Biblical Archaeology Review. Hershel Shanks, editor of the journal and chief advocate for prompt publication, has compiled some of the more significant articles from the Review (1992).

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Spring 1947 (perhaps winter 1946–1947)

Muhammed adh-Dhib discovers as many as eight scrolls in Cave 1.

April 1947?

Bedouins take scrolls to “Kando” (Khalil Iskander Shahin) in Bethlehem. Kando and his friend George Isaiah of Jerusalem probably both go to Qumran.

1947

Isaiah reports discovery of scrolls to his archbishop, Syrian Metropolitan Athanasius Y. Samuel.

June–July 1947

A meeting is arranged between Samuel and the Bedouins. Due to miscommunication, the Bedouins are not admitted to the monastery.

July 1947

Samuel buys several scrolls, including an Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa), the “Rule of the Community” scroll (1QS), and the Habakkuk scroll (1QpHab). The purchase probably also included 1QapGen (Apocryphon of Genesis).

Late July 1947

George Isaiah and a priest from the monastery return to Qumran and find additional fragments. Some claim other major scrolls were also discovered.

September 1947

Miles Copeland of the CIA office in Beirut photographs thirty frames of a scroll, reportedly the book of Daniel.

November 24, 1947

E. Sukenik is shown other scrolls at the Palestinian border.

November 27, 1947

Second meeting between Sukenik and those who want to sell scrolls.

November 29, 1947

Sukenik meets with sellers in Bethlehem; he is offered three scrolls. That same day the United Nations votes to form the State of Israel.

Late January 1948

Sukenik is shown Archbishop Samuel’s scrolls in the YMCA, Jerusalem.

February 6, 1948

Sukenik returns scrolls to Archbishop Samuel, who then shows them to scholars at the ASOR office (now Albright Institute) in Jerusalem.

March 15, 1948

William F. Albright confirms authenticity of the scrolls.

April 11, 1948

First press release announcing the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

May 15, 1948

British mandate expires. Israeli-Arab fighting escalates.

September 1948

Sukenik publishes the first samples of scrolls he purchased for Hebrew University: Isaiah (1QIsab), a collection of hymns (1QH), and the “War Scroll” (1QM).

January 7, 1949

Cease-fire announced. Qumran area is in Jordanian territory.

1950

First scrolls are published by ASOR: Isaiah (1QIsaa) and Habakkuk (1QpHab).

October 1951

More scrolls are brought to Joseph Saad of the Palestine Archaeological (now Rockefeller) Museum in Jerusalem, by Ta’amireh Bedouin. Saad launches an expedition that discovers four more caves at Wadi Murabbaʿat, near Qumran. R. de Vaux of the École Biblique, Jerusalem, launches an extensive archaeological expedition that continues to 1956.

March 20, 1952

The Copper Scroll is discovered in Cave 3.

September 1952

R. de Vaux and G. Lankester Harding discover Cave 4. Others may have removed documents earlier from this cave.

1952–1959

Fragments of the scrolls are organized in the “Scrollery” at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.

1954

Yigael Yadin (E. Sukenik’s son)—former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, now a professor at Hebrew University—meets with W. F. Albright while in the United States.

June 1, 1954

A short classified ad appears in the Wall Street Journal offering for sale “The Four Dead Sea Scrolls.” Yadin sees the ad and begins to arrange for verification and possible purchase.

July 1, 1954

“Mr. Green” (a pseudonym for Dr. Harry Orlinsky) verifies the scrolls’ authenticity, and Israel agrees to purchase the major scrolls belonging to Archbishop Samuel.

1955

Full publication of the Hebrew University scrolls of Isaiah (1QIsab), a collection of hymns (1QH), and the “War Scroll” (1QM) by E. Sukenik (who died in 1953).

1955

Volume 1 of Discoveries in the Judean Desert is published, containing Cave 1 manuscripts not published by ASOR or Hebrew University.

January 1956

Last Qumran cave (11) is discovered.

June 6, 1967

Israeli troops occupy the Rockefeller Museum during the Six Day War. Scrolls are still there; they were not taken to Amman, as some had thought.

1967–

Israel Department of Antiquities, now called Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), assumes responsibility for care and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The 1967 staff of scholars working on the scrolls is retained.

February 1989

In response to pressure from Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), and others, IAA releases a “Suggested Timetable” for the publication of the scrolls in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD) series.

December 1990

John Strugnell, Harvard University, is replaced as chief editor of the scroll-editing team. Health reasons are cited. Others point to his recent anti-Semitic remarks as well. Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University is appointed chief editor.

September 1991

BAR publishes the text of two previously unpublished Cave 4 documents (4QD and 4QMishm), reconstructing the text from a privately held concordance compiled by scholars at “The Scrollery” in Jerusalem in the 1950s.

September 22, 1991

Huntington Library, San Marino, California, announces that their photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls will be made available to the public.

November 20, 1991

Photographs of most of the scrolls are published by the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS).

November 25, 1991

The Israel Antiquities Authority announces that all restrictions to the Dead Sea Scrolls have been dropped.

Early 1992

An Israeli court issues an injunction barring distribution or use of the BAS volumes of plates in “Israel and elsewhere.”

October 1992

Announced date for official publication of photographs of all the scrolls in a microfiche edition by E. J. Brill publishers under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

AVAILABILITY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

At long last, more than forty years after the first Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, the major controversies seem to be coming to an end. All documents are now available to the scholarly world. With the appearance of the official edition of all the photographs, every library or individual can now have firsthand access to the scrolls. Many of the more controversial theories can now be put to rest. Now that we can see photograph after photograph of tiny inscribed scraps, often mixed together in a haphazard fashion, we can sympathize with the scholars who explained delays in publication on the basis of the enormity of the task, yet we will still regret that a whole generation of other scholars did not have the opportunity to study the scrolls firsthand.

The discoveries at Qumran are unquestionably the largest and most important of the finds. But in several nearby locations several miles away from Qumran along the western shore of the Dead Sea, other documents were found. These documents, while dating from the same general era, are not connected to the Qumran finds or the religious community that lived there. The other locations that have yielded biblical manuscripts will also be considered in our study of how all these manuscripts have influenced recent English translations of the Bible.

Masada is situated on top of a rock cliff overlooking the Dead Sea about fifteen miles south of En-Gedi. It is well known as the site of the final encampment of Jews who took refuge there during the Roman military conquests of a.d. 68–70. Besieged by the Roman army encamped at the base of the cliff, the residents chose suicide over surrender to the invading army. Masada had been established as a retreat fortress and was used by Herod. The rich archaeological finds included a variety of documents. Among them were several biblical manuscripts, mostly quite fragmentary, and a substantial portion of the book of Sirach.

Murabbaʿat is along the Dead Sea about eleven miles south of Qumran. Documents found there can be dated to the period of the Bar Kochba revolt (c. a.d. 135). Bar Kochba led an unsuccessful revolt for Jewish independence from Roman rule. Official explorations were carried out in the early months of 1952, although the caves had previously been entered in search of manuscripts. A number of biblical manuscripts were found in caves 1 and 2. The most substantial manuscript is a copy of the Minor Prophets. Fragments from Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers appear to have been from the same Torah scroll.

Caves at Nahal Hever (nahal is the Hebrew term for a river bed that fills with water during the rainy season; the Arabic term is wadi) were first explored in late 1953. In the spring of 1955 the Cave of Horror was discovered, so named because of the many human skeletons discovered there. Further explorations were conducted in 1960–1961. A very important Greek manuscript of the Minor Prophets was found, among other documents, in the Cave of Horror. The Cave of the Letters, discovered in the 1960–1961 season, yielded a few biblical scrolls, although there is no clear evidence that they were stored in this cave in antiquity. They may have been left there in modern times by Bedouins while exploring the caves in the area in search of manuscripts that could be sold.

Over eight hundred manuscripts have been discovered in the caves at Qumran. The vast majority of the manuscripts are poorly preserved. Often only a few columns of text survive, many times only a few barely legible scraps can be identified; but the quantity of material offers a treasure of information from a period and region that previously yielded little manuscript evidence. There are about 250 Qumran biblical manuscripts, mostly in Hebrew, but some in Aramaic and Greek. The rest of the manuscripts are copies of nonbiblical documents, many of which we previously knew nothing about. Many of these compositions are closely related to the biblical text but are not strictly Bible manuscripts. These include biblical commentaries called pesharim, which contain excerpts of the biblical text followed by the Hebrew word pesher, “its meaning.” There were also biblical paraphrases and collections of biblical quotations related to a specific topic. A number of phylacteries were also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Phylacteries are selected biblical passages from Deuteronomy and Exodus, written in a very small handwriting and worn by the devout in the form of tied capsules as a reminder of the importance of the Law.

There is a difference of opinion among scholars as to whether the biblical manuscripts or the newly discovered nonbiblical texts (which deal with the religious teachings and biblical interpretation of the Qumran community) are more important. Baigent and Leigh (1991:40), citing R. H. Eisenman, maintain that the biblical material is “perfectly innocuous and uncontroversial, containing no revelations of any kind. It consists of little more than copies of books from the Old Testament, more or less the same as those already in print or with only minor alterations.” On the other hand, James Sanders (1992:329), a leading biblical scholar, maintains that “the area of study which has perhaps been most affected by the scrolls is first [Old] Testament text criticism.” These radically different points of view can be explained in part by the fact that Baigent and Leigh believe that there is some conspiracy to suppress Qumran documents that would presumably be embarrassing to those who are blocking publication. On the other hand, Sanders’ academic specialty is textual criticism; so naturally we would expect that he would find a great deal of interest in the biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The conspiracy theory has gained little support in the academic community. Even Hershel Shanks (1992:275–290), editor of Biblical Archaeology Review and chief champion of the recent drive to publish the Dead Sea Scrolls, discounts the conspiracy theory as a reason for the lengthy delay in publishing the scrolls.

On the other hand, the importance of the biblical manuscripts for the recovery of the best text of the Old Testament has been recognized from the outset. The first scroll to be published was the nearly complete scroll of the book of Isaiah (1QIsaa). Scholars were immediately struck by the fact that in many ways it corresponded to the great medieval manuscripts of the Old Testament, all of which are at least a thousand years later than the Dead Sea Scrolls. But they were also intrigued by a number of different readings in the manuscript and the spelling system used by the scribes. The earliest forms of Hebrew writing use few, if any, vowels. However, to aid the reader and ensure that potentially ambiguous words and phrases be correctly read and understood, scribes gradually added more and more vowels. This was done less frequently in Bible manuscripts than in nonbiblical material, but 1QIsaa incorporated the fuller spelling system, suggesting that this manuscript was designed for easier reading by resolving the potential ambiguities created by the lack of vowels in the text.

Rumors still persist that other manuscripts from the Dead Sea were discovered since 1947 and are being held secretly. According to the rumors, either the holders of the documents are waiting for an opportune time to sell their treasures at the highest possible profit, or they fear that making the documents public will bring legal action against them from the antiquities authorities. It is also claimed by some that certain documents are being suppressed by religious authorities because they fear that the contents would be damaging to their beliefs. The conspiracy theory has most recently been argued by Baigent and Leigh in The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception (1991), but Hershel Shanks of the Biblical Archaeology Review, perhaps the most outspoken critic of the official handling of the scrolls, doubts that there is any conspiracy afoot. The Vatican and some of the Roman Catholic scholars on the official team are the objects of the sharpest criticism from Baigent and Leigh, whose conspiracy claims cannot be substantiated and are contradicted by the general openness of the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars who have studied the sectarian documents. While the existence of the rumored other documents cannot be ruled out, it must be said that there is no firm evidence for their existence.

The controversy concerning failure to publish the scrolls in a timely fashion has focused almost exclusively on the nonbiblical manuscripts. However, some reports in the popular press have given the general public the impression that the unpublished material includes biblical manuscripts, saying that some of them may contain evidence of readings that are significantly different from known biblical manuscripts. While some biblical manuscripts have not as yet been published, the vast majority of them have. In the case of some of the very fragmentary biblical scrolls from Cave 4, the manuscript evidence has been available to the general academic community through a series of doctoral dissertations, especially those given at Harvard University under Frank M. Cross. Some critics of the scrolls’ publication committee have complained about the committee members’ practice of making manuscript material available for doctoral research through only their own academic institutions. Regardless of one’s opinion on this issue, the biblical scrolls have been made available.

The piecing together of biblical fragments is helped in part by the fact that, since the scholars were dealing with documents whose general contents are already known, they are less difficult to reconstruct. Concordances, both printed and electronic, are a great help in determining where particular fragments may fit. It is very time-consuming to piece together nonbiblical fragments and then make sense of them.

DATING THE MANUSCRIPTS

The dating of biblical manuscripts is crucial for their proper evaluation and consequent determination of their worth for textual criticism. One factor for determining the age of manuscripts is the archaeological environment in which they were found. For example, around a.d. 70 Qumran was destroyed during the Jewish war and Roman invasion. Thus, assuming that the Dead Sea Scrolls found near the Qumran settlement were the product of that community, then the latest date for the manuscripts hidden in nearby caves is a.d. 70. Although some scholars still question the connection of the Qumran community with the caves (for example: Golb, 1980), most agree that the connection is firmly established and that the manuscripts can safely be assumed to have been written no later than the middle of the first century a.d.

Analysis of the minute details of the style of writing, known as paleography, cannot only corroborate the archaeological evidence for the latest date of the manuscripts, it can also help to estimate the age of the individual manuscripts. It must be recognized that paleography is not an exact science, but an art, even though modern technological advances have greatly enhanced the reliability and precision of paleographic studies. Recent innovations such as digitally enhanced computer-graphic images have enabled paleographers to be more certain about some readings in manuscripts that have fallen victim to deterioration and wear. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered, special infrared photography was also available to enhance the legibility of faded or browned manuscripts. Computer concordances have also aided greatly in identifying possible locations of biblical fragments of scrolls. For example, if only a few letters from each of two lines appear under each other in a tiny fragment, a computer concordance can give the researcher a list of possible biblical passages where these letter sequences occur within the limits of two lines of text.

Paleography’s major contribution is the establishment of a sequence of script development based on the fundamental principle that handwriting tends to evolve over the years by changing the styles and shapes of individual letters. Just as language itself changes over the years, due both to external and internal influences, handwriting also changes. One only needs to compare contemporary handwriting with the Victorian style of the nineteenth century or the styles of earlier centuries to realize that English styles of handwriting have changed. When the analysis of changing styles establishes relative sequences, that knowledge is combined with other documents that can be dated by other means (such as historically datable references within the documents or established datable archaeological contexts), and the paleographer can establish both a firm range of dates and a relative sequence within these dates. Paleographers who have worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls have utilized datable inscriptions such as coins from the Hasmonean era, the era in Palestinian Jewish history that began with the military victory of the Maccabees. These coins, with their inscriptions, are described in a number of catalogs of ancient Jewish coins, including Meshorer (1967) and Kindler (1974).

Another important manuscript used for comparative paleographic studies is the Nash papyrus, which contains the Ten Commandments derived from both the Exodus and Deuteronomy texts. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was the earliest known copy of any portion of the Old Testament. The early form of the handwriting, dated to the second century b.c. by William F. Albright (1949), was one of the basic tools that was first used to date the Dead Sea Scrolls.

A pioneering paleographical study of the earliest recovered Dead Sea Scrolls was done by Solomon A. Birnbaum, The Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls and Palaeography (1952), dealing with the manuscripts from Cave 1 and comparing them with other writing from the general period.

Birnbaum, a recognized paleographer, effectively argued against Solomon Zeitlin and others, who considered the Dead Sea Scrolls the product of the Middle Ages. Malachi Martin, in a massive two-volume study entitled The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1958), offered a detailed study of the scribal habits of the scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He dealt with the major manuscript finds from Cave 1: 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 1QpHab, and the nonbiblical manuscripts 1QH, 1QM, and 1QS. The most important study of the Dead Sea Scroll scripts, considering manuscript evidence from many of the caves, is Frank M. Cross’s “The Development of the Jewish Scripts” (1961). His work remains the standard point of reference for paleographic dating of the Qumran manuscripts.

In this book we will follow Cross’s general outline of the development of the Hebrew scripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, recognizing that exact dating is not possible, but that most dates can be considered accurate within twenty-five or fifty years, and that Qumran manuscripts are no later than a.d. 70. (It is possible that a few manuscripts may have found their way into the Qumran collection, either by placement in the caves in antiquity or by recent intermixing. One possible example is 4QGenb, which may have been brought to Cave 4 by the Bedouin from Murabbaʿat, according to Davila [1990:5].)

Specific details on how paleography has effected the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls are given in part two (p. 41), and further discussion on the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found in the following publications:

Stegemann, Hartmut. “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, L. H. Schiffman, editor, pp. 189–220.

Wahl, Thomas. “How Did the Hebrew Scribe Form His Letters?” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 3 (1971:8–20).

Yardeni, Ada. “The Palaeography of 4QJerb—a Comparative Study” in Textus 15 (1990:233–268).

Any lingering doubts about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls can now be dismissed because of the results of recent radiocarbon tests using the accelerator mass-spectrometry technique. Early Carbon 14 tests were done on associated material, rather than the scrolls themselves, because the amount of material that had been needed to run the tests would have destroyed too much of the manuscripts. Newer techniques now require far less material, so it was possible to test samples taken directly from fourteen manuscripts from four sites in the Dead Sea area. All but one of the manuscripts tested are within the range of dates given by paleographers. The one anomaly was a nonbiblical Qumran manuscript whose Carbon 14 date was two hundred years older than paleographic dating. In this case there appears to be evidence of some physical contamination. The biblical manuscripts tested were 1QIsaa and 4QSamc (Bonani: 1991).

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND MODERN TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Bible translators are faced not only with the issue of obtaining manuscript evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (and elsewhere) but also with how this evidence can actually be used in making new translations and/or revising old ones. The traditional assumption of most translators was that in general the best available avenue back to the “original text” of the Old Testament was through the Masoretic Text (MT). Nevertheless, translators have generally accepted the view that to a greater or lesser degree there are still problems in the Masoretic Text as preserved in the great medieval codices such as Codex Leningradensis, used as the basis of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Aleppo Codex, the basis of the “Hebrew University Bible Project.” In some cases difficult Hebrew constructions that puzzle modern translators were problematic for ancient translators as well. In such situations Ellington (1989:22–25) proposed a “consensus system” for making textual decisions by following the majority vote of five major modern translations: Revised Standard Version (RSV), New American Bible (NAB), Today’s English Version (TEV), New International Version (NIV), and the New Jewish Version (NJV). Osborn (1981) proposed a similar consensus approach. But this method, despite Ellington’s belief that it is an objective system, fails to take into account the fact that our understanding of the textual history of the Old Testament is being completely revised in light of the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries.

Each of the five major translations selected for consideration differs in its understanding of Old Testament textual history. The RSV can be said to reflect the consensus view of mid-century textual scholars. The NAB accepts the three-recension theory of Frank M. Cross, at times showing a definite preference for the Egyptian recension as witnessed by the agreement of LXX and some Qumran manuscripts. This is especially evident in its translation of the books of Samuel. The TEV may be said to take a mediating position somewhere between the RSV and the NAB, although the translators’ access to the Qumran evidence was significantly less extensive than the NAB’s. The NJV offers a translation of the “traditional text” of Judaism, i.e., the Masoretic Text, with its antecedents in the most stable of the earliest witnesses, notably the proto-MT. The NIV also holds the MT in high regard, but is willing to depart from it not only in cases where the translators concluded that the MT was corrupt, but also in cases where a less-well-attested witness yields a translation more in harmony with a New Testament quotation or allusion (e.g., Ps. 2:9/Rev. 2:27; Ps. 116:10/2 Cor. 4:13). Bruce Waltke, one of the NIV translators, explained this “harmonization principle” (Barker 1986:89), but in a more recent article expressed reservations about this practice (1989:26).

Some reviewers have complained that, despite the extensive selection of textual problems dealing primarily with translation issues, a number of important items have not been considered by the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (HOTTP) (Klein 1985). But just as the UBS Greek New Testament does not promise to present a whole range of textual problems in its critical apparatus, instead choosing primarily those of interest to translators, HOTTP is intended to aid translators in their task. Yet Klein points out that the HOTTP discusses only seven readings for 1 Samuel 10, preferring the MT in all but one case. In this same chapter the NRSV departs from the MT six times. In 1 Samuel 1:1–2:10 the contrast between the HOTTP’s textual decisions and the NRSV textual base is even more evident. The HOTTP considers eight passages, diverging from MT in two of them, while NRSV departs from MT in eight additional passages. Of course, the HOTTP committee could not have been expected to anticipate the textual decisions made by the NRSV committee, but the increase in the number of MT departures suggests that text-critical considerations have increased in recent years.

OLD TESTAMENT TEXTUAL THEORIES

To understand the significance of the changes in approaching textual issues in recent translations it is important to recognize the profound changes that have occurred in our understanding of the textual history of the Old Testament. These profound and fundamental changes are at least as significant as the revolution in New Testament textual criticism in the late nineteenth century, which culminated in the work of Westcott and Hort.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century Paul de Lagarde advocated a one-recension theory to account for textual variation in the Old Testament, based primarily on the high degree of consistency in the Hebrew text of the many manuscripts collated by Kennicott and de Rossi. Lagarde’s one-recension archetype manuscript reached back to the first century of the common era. Lagarde also proposed a similar situation for the Septuagint. From a single translation three recensions developed, namely those of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, each with implicit geographic orientation. Lagarde did not work out his theories for the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. He did, however, publish a critically reconstructed text of what he believed to be the Lucianic recension of Genesis to Esther in his Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum pars prior (Göttingen, 1883).

Paul Kahle (1959), taking his cue from the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which narrates the story of the great Greek translation of the Pentateuch undertaken in Alexandria, maintained that there were many old Greek translations of the nature of Targumim that the translation of “the Seventy” (i.e., Septuaginta) was intended to supplant. But the plurality of text types persisted until the emergence of the three major recensions that had developed by the time of Origen, and which related to his work on the Hexapla.

Of course, the work of Lagarde antedated the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, and Kahle developed his theories long before that time, although in his later years he attempted to show that the textual evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls could be made to conform to his theory. By the 1950s the major issues were raised and the groundwork laid for thinking within a framework of recensions, text types, and geographic distribution. Frank M. Cross (1975a, 1975b), the first official editor assigned most of the Cave 4 biblical manuscripts, formulated a three-recension or text-type theory with geographic orientation in Egypt (LXX), Palestine (Samaritan Pentateuch), and Babylon (proto-Masoretic Text). These labels are only an approximation of the textual witnesses, but Cross’s theory was quite influential in shaping the discussion about textual witnesses.

Dominique Barthélemy entered into the discussion with his work on the important Greek Minor Prophets scroll found at Nahal Hever. This manuscript, dating from the turn of the era, is a pre-Christian recension of the Old Greek (OG) translation. Its revisions are characteristic of the kaige recension and are described as proto-Theodotionic, bringing the text into line with the proto-Masoretic Text in a number of ways. This Palestinian tradition differs from the recensional activity of the early Greek church fathers.

Shemaryahu Talmon (1975, 1989) modified Cross’s text-type theory by pointing to sociological groups—rather than geographic areas—as the locus of text types or text groups. These Gruppentexte developed within the diversity of Judaism at the time. Three major recensions, or text groups, survived because the groups that preserved them survived—namely orthodox Judaism (proto-Masoretic Text), Samaritans (Samaritan Pentateuch), and Christians, who appropriated the Septuagint as their edition of the Old Testament.

Emanuel Tov (1980:64–65) has commented on the mixed nature of some important Qumran biblical manuscripts:

We suggest that the Samuel scrolls from Cave 4, 11QpaleoLev, as well as many other texts from Qumran, reflect such early texts [not three recensions] of the OT, insofar as they do not agree exclusively with one tradition, but agree now with this and then with that text (MT, LXX, and Samaritan Pentateuch), and in addition contain a significant number of exclusive readings. In our view, the traditional characterization of the LXX as a text type is imprecise and misleading. In the case of the Samuel scrolls, the recognition of a relatively large number of “LXX readings” made it easy for scholars to label some of these scrolls as “Septuagintal,” and this characterization was readily accepted in scholarship which had become used to viewing the textual witnesses of the OT as belonging to three main streams. However, … this view should now be considered outdated.

For several books there is clear evidence of at least two ancient editions (Scanlin 1988:211–213), but the great degree of admixture of what appears to be two editions of Samuel has prompted Ulrich (1988:103–105) to recommend that a translation of Samuel should select now one and now another text from the double literary tradition:

For 1 Samuel 1–2 we find in the earlier edition (the MT I would preliminarily suggest) a straightforward account with one portrait of Hannah. In the secondary edition (the LXX) we find the intentional and consistent reshaping of that account, arguably for theological motives and possibly for misogynous motives, to give a changed portrait of Hannah. When we turn to 1 Samuel 17–18, in the earlier edition (the LXX) we find a single version of the story, whereas in the secondary edition (the MT) we find a composite version.

Which edition should be translated? Ulrich (1988:112–113) believes that “a decision to translate the form preserved in the MT can be made legitimately in principle (a priori).… A decision in principle to translate the MT specifically is completely legitimate and desirable, on both scholarly and religious grounds.” This is the decision of the NJV. Ulrich correctly goes on to say that an analogous argument for a translation of the LXX can also be made. This, in fact, is being done by Marguerite Harl and others in La Bible d’Alexandrie (Paris:Cerf, 1986–). To date, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy have been published. But, Ulrich concludes:

If we were to decide that the textual basis of our translation should be the earliest careful edition of a text … preserved in our witnesses, then we should choose different editions for different books and units within certain books. For 1 Samuel we would choose MT for the Hannah story and the Old Greek tradition (OG) for the David and Goliath story. If, on the other hand, we were to decide that the textual basis of our translation should be the latest careful edition of a text accepted as authoritative by a community, then we should select the MT for David and Goliath and the OG for the Hannah story.

James Sanders discusses these issues within the framework of “canon criticism,” in which he sees as crucial the period of intense stabilization of the authoritative literature by a believing community. According to Sanders (1991:205–206):

The task of text criticism is the quest for the most critically responsible text. But such a formulation is not in itself clear enough: for obviously this cannot mean simply accepting, or even putting exceptional value on, the earliest texts we have; they exhibit a considerable fluidity. Nor should it mean that text criticism throws in the towel and accepts willy-nilly a textus receptus.

The practical implications of such an approach may mean, for example, if one accepts the LXX reading, which has Qumran support, at Isaiah 40:6a, (“and I replied” for “and one replied”), a structural-literary analysis of the entire passage supports the acceptance of the LXX variant in Isaiah 40:2, which lacks any Hebrew support. Instead of mixing the literary traditions, Sanders suggests that it may be possible to offer a translation of both texts of Isaiah 40:1–11 in parallel columns (1991:212–213), although the presentation of pluriform texts in a Bible translation intended for the general public is certainly problematic.

The critical point at hand is this: Is the recent trend toward a new respect for the Masoretic Text a retreat to the centuries-old preference for the Masoretic Text of the Rabbinic Bibles? This is the criticism offered by some, such as B. Albrektson (1975), who have examined the principles underlying the work of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, which is sponsored by the United Bible Societies for the purpose of assisting their Bible translators. Two related major criticisms have been expressed: (1) the HOTTP committee’s preponderant preference for the Masoretic Text (MT), and (2) their failure to give due consideration to conjectural emendations (i.e., corrections made to the text on the basis of scholarly conjecture without having any actual manuscript support). But, did the committee actually “exclude conjectures from consideration” (Barr 1988:447; Albrektson 1981:1–18)? The reviewers surely did not mean that Barthélemy’s treatment neglected the discussion of conjectural emendations. Even a casual reading of the first three of five published volumes of the final reports of the committee, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, will show that proposed emendations are discussed at length. Barr’s statement suggests otherwise. I suspect that Barr is criticizing the failure of the HOTTP to give due consideration to emendation as a means of restoring the text. But others have expressed greater appreciation for HOTTP’s general preference for the harder reading. For example, Robert Hanhart (1985:145–146) said:

With regard to internal evidence, the Committee rightly shows great appreciation for the old principle of lectio difficilior (i.e., a difficult variant reading is more likely original than an easier reading). It also has a higher regard for the syntactical methods of analysis and interpretation used by the most ancient Jewish and Christian exegetes than it does for the methods of modern exegesis.… A conjecture must not be put forward out of laziness, but there are times when it is logical to make a particular conjecture on the basis of evidence gleaned from a careful comparison of the traditional text forms.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND TRANSLATION PRAXIS

But the crucial question remains: What text do we translate? Is the primary focus of interest the Urtext (the original text in its earliest written form) or a later canonical form of the text? To understand this question, readers should know that the HOTTP describes the development of the Old Testament text in four stages. The first stage is the Urtext for which there is no documentary evidence. The second stage begins with the intense stabilization process that spans the last centuries b.c. down through a.d. 70. This stabilization process was carried out in different ways by different religious communities and even varied in certain books of the Old Testament. The third period is marked by the emergence of a received text which, because of its dominance, largely if not completely eliminated other readings and forms of the text within the religious communities that agreed on a received text. The stabilization process seems to have dealt with a minimum residue of textual variants by allowing both readings to be preserved in the received text. There appears to be at least one function of the kethib-qere marginal system (i.e., the reading of the text with an alternate reading in the margin) still preserved in the Masoretic Text. The final stage is the emergence of the Masoretic Text by about a.d. 1000. Other text critics have described the development of the Old Testament text in a different series of stages. (See the chart on pp. 36–37.) Despite the differences, there is agreement on the crucial importance of stage-two developments.

B. Albrektson (1978:50), one of the first outspoken critics of the HOTTP’s policy regarding emendation, ascribes little normative value to a stage-two or -three text, since he questions whether “the emergence of the standard text must have been the result of a conscious and deliberate text-critical activity with the purpose of creating a normative recension.” Albrektson’s primary concern is the denial of any text-critical activity by the Jewish authorities during this critical period; this denial also implies that no text of the period was given the impetus towards normativeness by the religious community.

On the other hand, James Sanders (1987:163) says “criticism has felt free to rewrite the text in the light of what it could bring to study of the text in an effort to reconstruct an Urtext,” and in so doing has “shifted the locus of authority from what the early believing communities received, shaped, and passed on, to what scholars were convinced was said or written in the first place. What perhaps had started as a historian’s exercise … became a focus of authority.” Barr (1988:140) strenuously objects to Sanders’s sloganeering phrase “rewriting the Bible,” but he seems to fall victim to the same temptation when he says that Sanders (and, by implication, the HOTTP committee) would not even “allow [textual emendation] to be mentioned.”

Surprisingly, Old Testament critics, whose names are virtually synonymous with emendation and reconstruction of the Urtext, were themselves cautious when dealing with the question of the textual basis of Old Testament translation. G. F. Moore (1900:23), in the notes to his critical edition of Judges in the Polychrome Bible, says, “The task of the textual critic is not to restore the text of the sources [emphasis his], nor even of some earlier state of the composite work, but only the form in which it left the hand of the last redactor.”

The American committee responsible for producing an American edition of the English Revised Version (ERV, l885), resulting in the publication of the American Standard Version (ASV, 1901), were sensitive to the criticism that the ERV adhered too closely to the Masoretic Text. In light of this criticism they decided to solicit the opinions of a number of eminent German Old Testament scholars, including Dillmann, Kautzsch, Strack, and Wellhausen. Wellhausen (1886:55–56) responded:

That a reading of the LXX is in itself worth exactly as much as the corresponding one in the Massoretic text, is obvious. The grounds for preferring the one or the other are, however, always only internal—equally so whether that of the LXX or that of the Massoretic text is preferred. Furthermore, it is my opinion that, as the sanctity of the Bible is derived from its recognition by the church, the church must also determine for itself which Bible, i.e., to which text of the Bible, it will accord this sanctity.

Wellhausen had presented his opinion more fully in his revision of the fourth edition of Bleek’s introduction to the Old Testament, section 284. Wellhausen (1871:14, note) believed that conjectural emendation does not serve well to recover some intermediate stage in the evolution from archetype to recensions, but aims at reconstructing the original text form, since only truth can testify on its own behalf. On the other hand, H. P. Smith (1885:623), in criticizing the textual base of the English Revised Version, was convinced that “an existing copy of an ancient book is of value to us only so far as it represents its original.” Since he goes on immediately to talk about the autographs (the original writings), it must be assumed that this is what he means by original, not merely the Vorlage (the prototype manuscript from which others are made) of a particular text family.

Barthélemy (1982:*76) addressed the issue of textual criticism as it pertains to recovering the original wording or reconstrucing the text in its second stage. He summarized the framework within which the HOTTP operates:

It is that original framework which provides the internal evidence for conjectural emendation and which can therefore be its only aim. As long as textual criticism aims at recovering the original literary framework of a text, it will be both necessary and appropriate to appeal to conjectural emendation. If, however, the aim is to arrive at the text as it stood at the beginning of the second period of its development, conjectural emendation runs the risk of overshooting this aim and recovering a textual form appropriate to the first phase.

But what of Barr’s (and others’) objection that in cases where the MT seems hopelessly corrupt it seems absurd to struggle to make sense of what is clearly in error rather than to resort to a plausible emendation? Barr asks whether this approach leads to a belief that “error, so long as we have it on paper, is better than truth that is not on paper” (1988:140). But Barr’s dichotomy between “error” and “truth” casts too wide a net—or at least it will be understood by many to do so. In cases where “hopelessly corrupt” means that we moderns are at a total loss to make sense out of the existing MT, we must hazard a guess at its meaning and frankly acknowledge our puzzlement in a footnote. Even the NJV reverts to this type of solution on occasion.

Yet at what point do we declare the MT to be hopelessly corrupt? Andersen and Freedman, in the Anchor Bible, translated the entire book of Hosea (recognized as being full of thorny problems) by following the MT in virtually every case! And if by hopelessly corrupt we mean that in the course of the editorial and redactional development of particular books the thread of the discourse was altered (garbled?), then Barthélemy’s objection (1982:*76) to emendation is particularly valid: “Is one to use conjectural emendation to eliminate an ancient text because it has been restructured to provide a new context that gives meaning to a redactor’s insertion?” He goes on to say, “In dealing with composite texts such as we find in the Pentateuch or Chronicles, a textual criticism based on conjectural emendation threatens to shatter the fragile unity which the redactor tried to piece together out of diverse materials.”

Dealing with the stage-two text is not a matter of despair over the chimera of reconstructing the Urtext, it is rather a positive recognition that we are dealing with the “church’s book.” It is not only their original literary forms that give these texts authority, but a corpus that admittedly took new shapes and forms—at times minor and at other times more extensive. Thus, a form of the text that is “wrong” (= secondary) on literary grounds may be authoritative as canon, and to be preferred to a conjectural text that may “have every possibility of being literarily correct but for which there is no evidence that it functioned as sacred scripture for any community” (Barthélemy 1982:*77).

It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish between those early readings that can be recognized as deriving from the perils of textual transmission and those that are the result of ancient editorial or recensional activity. Emanuel Tov (1981:307–308) goes so far as to say:

No early reading should be ‘preferred’ to another, because variants like those analyzed [in the previous chapter of his book] derive from a certain stage in the literary growth of the biblical books and as such they cannot and should not be preferred to readings belonging to another stage in the literary development of these books.

In Tov’s view “there exist no relevant external considerations [author’s emphasis] that can be applied to the evaluation of readings retroverted from the ancient versions” (1981:286), although he would allow for a few exceptions from some Hebrew sources. Although Tov’s position may seem extreme, it does serve to emphasize the importance of recognizing the nature of the literary and textual evolution of the Old Testament.

Barthélemy, in an important article in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers (1984:19–41), discusses the whole matter of the relationship of literary and textual criticism and concludes with an outline of the proper use by the exegete (and translator) of the LXX:

textual criticism of the mt and the lxx

a)    When the text of a passage that is difficult or textually defective gives rise to a new text intended to correct the old, this literary phenomenon deserves to be studied carefully, but the text in question should not be changed.

b)    The MT is a text which has been only slightly altered in the ways described above. This renders it readily amenable to further alteration. Chances are that the defective passages remain intact in the text, and one rarely has to worry about destroying a new literary structure in the process of restoring the text.

c)    The LXX (along with the Samaritan) began to diverge from the predecessors of the MT at a much earlier date than any other text. Because of this, the LXX is best able to testify as to the earlier state of the MT, before the accumulation of accidental changes had altered the text.

d)    It is necessary to keep in mind that the LXX (and often its Vorlage) is textually much more innovative than the MT. When the LXX seems to have preserved a coherent text (in cases where the MT is almost certainly defective), then it is necessary to recognize the possibility that this apparent coherence of the LXX was obtained by way of correction (occasionally even in its Vorlage), starting from a defective form which the MT has preserved without alteration.

e)    When we say that the textual critic would be right in correcting accidental errors which have not undergone the sort of literary correction described above, it is important to keep in mind that an extreme case is being described.

Recent translations of 1 Samuel have diverged widely in their willingness to depart from the MT. This is not only a matter of the degree of confidence the translation committees held towards the MT, but also reflects the complex state of the text of 1 Samuel in its variety of forms during the period of the emergence of the stage-two text. Put one way, it may be claimed that the text of 1 Samuel has suffered greatly in transmission; or one may conclude that two editions of 1 Samuel existed in antiquity and that the degree of admixture between these editions may be seen in the extant forms of the text. A translation such as the NIV, with only fifteen MT departures in 1 Samuel, demonstrates its reverence for the MT. At the other end of the scale, the NAB departs about 230 times, many departures being based on the Qumran evidence and its frequent support of LXX readings. The departures from the MT in 1 Samuel in the following translations provide a full picture:

New International Version: 15

Today’s English Version: 51

Revised Standard Version: about 60

New Revised Standard Version: about 110

New English Bible: 160

New American Bible: 230

Statistics on earlier translations are taken from Albrektson (1981:17).

In the account of the early achievements of Saul in 1 Samuel 9:27–11:1 (anointing, proclamation as king, military accomplishments), there are a number of significant pluses in the OG that add certain details which generally reinforce a positive view of Saul’s kingship. In 10:1, Samuel prophesies that Saul will save Israel from their enemies. And 10:21 describes the selection process in greater detail than the MT by saying that the men of the Matrite family were brought forth one by one, reinforcing the point that a man-by-man search for the chosen king was carried out to no avail, since Saul was hiding. The final major plus (10:27) offers a full explanation of the gravity of the threat by Nahash, king of the Ammonites. Any Israelite who crossed the Jordan into Ammonite territory had his right eye gouged out, and Israel had “no deliverer.” Thus Saul’s courage and military prowess would be recognized as a particularly notable achievement and a specific fulfillment of Samuel’s promise in 10:1 (OG) that Saul will save Israel from the hand of their enemies. The addition to 10:27 is not attested in the OG, but is found in 4QSama, as well as in Josephus’s Antiquities (6.5.1), where Josephus offers the further explanation that gouging out only the right eye was sufficient to disable a warrior, since his shield would cover the left eye anyway.

If the addition to 10:1 is considered a gloss, then the balance of the related textual problems would favor MT, which is precisely the decision made by the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. However, if one accepts the OG reading of 10:1 (as in RSV, NRSV, NAB, and NEB), then the fuller 10:21 and the different form of the question in 10:22, which is more appropriate in light of the fuller 10:21, follow. Since the fuller 10:27 was poorly attested in external evidence (primarily Josephus) prior to the Qumran discovery, it is not surprising that RSV did not add it. However, NAB ventures a footnote, “There is ancient evidence for a longer introduction to this campaign,” and cite 4QSama in their “Textual Notes,” published in some editions. NRSV now places the extra material in the text, completing the process of accepting the OG version of the narrative, with an attested Hebrew Vorlage for at least one of the additions. One should keep in mind that the Qumran evidence in this section is fragmentary. Nothing is known about its witness to the text of the earlier section of the narrative. This may be construed as an admittedly weak ex silentio argument in favor of the OG/Qumran version. But it must be remembered that a comparison of all extant sections of 4QSama shows that it is not consistent in its preference for the OG (Tov: 1980).

Rofé (1982:131), in rejecting the originality of the fuller text, points out that it is a typical Midrashic duplication that may add clarity in one respect, but loses even more in another. K. Luke (1986:211), on the other hand, argues for its inclusion primarily on the ground that “to the historian, v 27b is of the highest interest.”

It would seem that there are only two options for the translator. One could follow the version attested in the MT as done in NJV and NIV (as well as TOB and GeCL), or the entire set of OG variants could be followed (with partial support from 4QSama), including 10:22, “Did the man come here?”—an appropriate question following the man-by-man review which was expected to reveal the chosen king. The HOTTP recommends 4QSama
tenupot (wave offerings) for 10:4, which is the reading in the OG and which is also used by NAB.

In summary, the underlying theoretical basis for the history of the OT text and the praxis of textual criticism needs to be recognized. Although textual scholars may differ in the assumptions they make about the history of the text, valid comparisons can only be made if these presuppositions are made clear.

THE EFFECT OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ON MODERN TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Every major Bible translation published since 1950 has claimed to have taken into account the textual evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Naturally, they could only utilize the evidence made available by the time of their work. After the initial publication of 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and 1QpHab utilized by the RSV, additional manuscript evidence was rather meager and slow to be utilized by other translation teams. This was due in part to the relative inaccessibility of the material as well as its limited quantity. Gradually, however, translations undertaken in the 1960s and 1970s considered whatever evidence was available to them. The evidence was utilized not only to marshall evidence for or against a particular textual reading but to come to a better understanding of the history of the transmission of the Old Testament text.

The official statements of the translators regarding their attitude toward text-critical issues can provide insight into the translators’ attitude toward the Masoretic Text and the other ancient witnesses. We can also see a shifting attitude, especially in cases where major revisions of recent translations have appeared, e.g.: the Revised Standard Version (1952) and the New Revised Standard Version (1990); the New English Bible (1970); and the Revised English Bible (1989). The New American Bible, first published in 1970, is currently undergoing a major revision. The revised New Testament appeared in 1986; to date only the revised Psalms has been published (1992). The Jerusalem Bible (1966) has been superseded by the New Jerusalem Bible (1985). Each committee had a variety of reasons for undertaking a revision in a relatively short period of time, especially when compared to the general history of Bible translation. But all the revisions have taken the opportunity to reassess the value of the Dead Sea Scrolls in their work.

The work of the RSV translation committee was well underway when the first of the Qumran manuscript discoveries came to the attention of the scholarly world in 1948. Millar Burrows, a member of the RSV Old Testament committee, edited and published (1950) the first group of manuscripts that at the time were in the possession of Archbishop Athanasius Y. Samuel, including both 1QIsaa and 1QpHab. Burrows also wrote two books that were largely responsible for introducing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the general public. In The Dead Sea Scrolls (1955) and its sequel, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1958), Burrows explained how the RSV translators utilized this newly discovered evidence in their work. Burrows brought with him to the 1948 translation-committee meeting a list of the textual variants he had noted in his work in preparation for the publication of the Qumran manuscripts that were assigned to the American Schools of Oriental Research. Of all the variants, thirteen were considered of sufficient importance to result in changes in the translation itself or be included in textual variants in the footnotes. No variants from the Habakkuk commentary, 1QpHab, were incorporated in the RSV. On later reflection, Burrows (1955:305) concluded, “For myself I must confess that in some cases where I probably voted for the emendation I am now convinced that our decision was a mistake, and the Masoretic reading should have been retained.” Although Burrows changed his mind about the value of some readings, the New Revised Standard Version retained all thirteen items and added seven more. In More Light (1958:146–154), Burrows shares some of the thinking behind the translators’ consideration of 1QIsaa. By 1964, when Burrows published Diligently Compared, a detailed analysis of the RSV committee’s work, he comments on the newer Qumran material not available to the RSV committee, “As they appear [in print] they will be carefully studied by the Committee to determine their value for any further revision of R[SV]” (1964: 212).

The policy of the RSV regarding textual notes is explained in the preface:

The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic texts as fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the “Masoretes”) of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done. No notes are given in such cases, because the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants.

Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized. Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions (translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin), which were made before the time of the Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text.…

Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such corrections are indicated in the footnotes by the abbreviation Cn, and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added. (Oxford Annotated Bible, [xii])

When the RSV was first published in 1952 the Dead Sea Scrolls were not specifically mentioned in either the preface or in the footnotes where Qumran readings are cited, using instead the general phrase, “One ancient Ms.” This, of course, is not altogether surprising, since the first discoveries were only available during the final phase of the revision process. Also, the diverse nature of the textual witnesses in the Qumran biblical manuscripts was not evident in the Cave 1 Isaiah scrolls. Nevertheless, the RSV was the first major English translation to utilize the Dead Sea Scrolls, a trend that would be greatly expanded in the work of the revisers in the New Revised Standard Version.

The stated policy of the New Revised Standard Version regarding the textual base of their work is in many ways more specific than the statement of the RSV committee. In the preface, “To the Reader,” the discovery of additional Dead Sea Scrolls not available to the RSV committee is cited as one of the main contributions to the NRSV. The committee’s policy regarding the use and citation of textual evidence begins with a specific statement regarding the edition of the Hebrew Bible they used:

For the Old Testament the Committee has made use of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977; ed. sec. emendata, 1983). This is an edition of the Hebrew and Aramaic text as current early in the Christian era and fixed by Jewish scholars (the “Masoretes”) of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done. No notes are given in such cases, because the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants. When an alternative reading given by the Masoretes is translated in a footnote, this is identified by the words “Another reading is.”

Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized. Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions (translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin), which were made prior to the time of the work of the Masoretes and which therefore may reflect earlier forms of the Hebrew text. In such instances a footnote specifies the version or versions from which the correction has been derived and also gives a translation of the Masoretic Text. Where it was deemed appropriate to do so, information is supplied in footnotes from subsidiary Jewish traditions concerning other textual readings (the Tiqqune Sopherim, “emendations of the scribes”). These are identified in the footnotes as “Ancient Heb tradition.”

Occasionally it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission and that none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such reconstructions are indicated in footnotes by the abbreviation Cn (“Correction”), and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added.

The New English Bible (NEB) took a significantly different approach to the text of the Old Testament. A lack of confidence in the Masoretic Text combined with a willingness to make certain textual modifications in pursuit of the “original text” are reflected in the NEB’s statement, taken from its preface (first printing):

The text … is not infrequently uncertain and its meaning obscure.… The earliest surviving form of the Hebrew text is perhaps that found in the Samaritan Pentateuch.… The Hebrew text as thus handed down [by the Massoretes] is full of errors of every kind due to defective archetypes and successive copyists’ errors, confusion of letters, omissions and insertions, displacements of words and even whole sentences or paragraphs; and copyists’ unhappy attempts to rectify mistakes have only increased the confusion.… When the problem before the translators was that of correcting errors in the Hebrew text in order to make sense, they had recourse, first of all, to the ancient versions.… These ancient versions, especially when they agree, contribute in varying degrees to the restoration of the Hebrew text when incapable of translation as it stands.… In the last resort the scholar may be driven to conjectural emendation of the Hebrew text.

The statement of the Revised English Bible (REB) translators demonstrates a significant shift in their attitude towards the text, when compared with their predecessors:

It is probable that the Massoretic Text remained substantially unaltered from the second century a.d. to the present time, and this text is reproduced in all Hebrew Bibles. The New English Bible translators used the third edition of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica.… Despite the care used in the copying of the Massoretic Text, it contains errors, in the correction of which there are witnesses to be heard. None of them is throughout superior to the Massoretic Text, but in particular places their evidence may preserve the correct reading. (xv–xvi)

The Tanakh, often called the New Jewish Version (NJV), is a revision of the Jewish translation first published in 1917 under the sponsorship of the Jewish Publication Society of Philadelphia. It is not surprising that the translators state their intention to adhere to the so-called Masoretic Text. (The title pages of the original volumes, published in three parts according to the threefold division of the Hebrew canon, says “according to the Masoretic Text,” while the combined one-volume edition says “traditional Hebrew text.” Harry Orlinsky objects to the Masoretic Text, since there was not a single Masoretic system.) Orlinsky (1917:413) explains the reason for adherence to the traditional text:

All official translations are meant for the community at large, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, as the case may be; they are not meant primarily for scholars, who can control the pertinent data at the source and who are familiar with the canons of textual criticism. The general community has the right to expect the most accurate and intelligible translation possible of the text handed down through the ages. Not only that, once a committee of translators begins to resort to emendation, it is difficult to draw the line.

Following Orlinsky’s principles, the committee undertook faithfully to follow the traditional (Masoretic) text. There were certain points, however, at which footnotes appeared necessary—that is, “where textual variants are to be found in some of the ancient manuscripts or versions of the Bible” (preface to The Torah).

The New American Bible offers another approach to textual considerations. As an official Roman Catholic translation, one significant difference from Protestant-sponsored translations is the inclusion of the books of the Deuterocanon interspersed among the books of the Protocanon. Traditionally, certain evidence from the ancient versions is held in high regard as textual witnesses. More importantly for our present study, the NAB had extensive access to Qumran evidence. The stated perspective of the NAB is:

Where the translation supposes the received text—Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be—ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary. But for those who are happily able to study the original text of the Scripture at firsthand, a supplementary series of textual notes pertaining to the Old Testament is added in an appendix to the typical edition published by the St. Anthony Guild Press. These furnish a guide in those cases in which the editorial board judges that the manuscripts in the original languages, or the evidence of the ancient versions, or some similar source, furnish the correct reading of a passage, or at least a reading more true to the original than that customarily printed in the available editions.

The Massoretic text of 1 and 2 Samuel has in numerous instances been corrected by the more ancient manuscripts Samuel a, b, and c from Cave 4 of Qumran, with the aid of important evidence from the Septuagint in both its oldest form and its Lucianic recension.…

The basic text for the Psalms in the first edition is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944, 1945). Nevertheless, they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles. (preface, v)

A revised edition of the Psalms was published in 1992. In the new edition, Qumran evidence is added in support of fifteen textual variants already followed in the first edition, and an additional three variants are followed based on the Qumran evidence.

The conservative theological stance of the translators of the New International Version (NIV) is reflected in their prefatory statement:

For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, The Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of the Hebrew text. They were consulted, as were the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. Sometimes a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself. Such instances, being variants within the Masoretic tradition, are not specified by footnotes. In rare cases, words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text. Footnotes indicate this. The translators also consulted the more important early versions—the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. Such instances are footnoted. Sometimes vowel letters and vowel signs did not, in the judgment of the translators, represent the correct vowels for the original consonantal text. Accordingly some words were read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated in footnotes.

For the Good News Bible (GNB):

The basic text for the Old Testament is the Masoretic Text printed in Biblia Hebraica (third edition, 1937), edited by Rudolph Kittel. In some instances the words of the printed consonantal text have been divided differently or have been read with a different set of vowels; at times a variant reading (qere) in the margin of the Hebrew text has been followed instead of the reading in the text (kethib); and in other instances a variant reading supported by one or more Hebrew manuscripts has been adopted. Where no Hebrew source yields a satisfactory meaning in the context, the translation has either followed one or more of the ancient versions (Greek, Syriac, Latin) or has adopted a reconstructed text (technically referred to as a conjectural emendation) based on scholarly agreement; such departures from the Hebrew are indicated in footnotes. (preface)

After completing our book-by-book survey we will better be able to judge how faithful these translations have been to their stated principles and whether they made good use of the evidence of the manuscripts from the Dead Sea.

Several recent translations that are not regularly included in this study are, nevertheless, of interest because of their general policy regarding the textual basis of the Old Testament.

The New King James Version (NKJV) of 1982 is noted for its belief that the textual basis of the KJV in the New Testament, namely the Textus Receptus, should be retained, with certain adjustments to the Byzantine or Majority text. For the Old Testament the basic text was Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, whose consonantal text differs very little from the Hebrew Bible text used for the KJV. According to the preface (vi), “the NKJV draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves.” However, evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls is cited in only six footnotes in the entire Old Testament, and only in Isaiah 49:5 is the Dead Sea Scroll reading followed in the text, where it is cited in support of the qere reading of the Masoretic Text. The six references are: Deuteronomy 32:43; 1 Samuel 1:24; Isaiah 10:16; 22:8; 38:14; 49:5. In Isaiah 38:14 the NKJV renders Lord without citing any textual evidence, against Lord (for Hebrew adonai) as found in the Masoretic Text and 1QIsaa. The same textual evidence prevails in verse 16, where NKJV again translates Lord, but without any textual note. Despite the implication of the preface, the NKJV has made only limited use of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), which is the 1985 revision of the Jerusalem Bible, says, “For the Old Testament the Masoretic Text is used.… Only when this text presents insuperable difficulties have emendations or the versions or other Hebrew manuscripts or the ancient versions (notably the LXX and Syriac) been used” (xii).

Die Gute Nachricht (1982), the common-language German version, strove to follow the Masoretic Text as much as possible. The translators took advantage of recent discoveries, including Qumran, which helped to reshape the understanding of the history of the Old Testament text. The translators gave careful consideration to the text-critical analysis of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. In the Appendix (1982:300) the translators explain that the basis of their textual decisions was HOTTP. They departed from the Masoretic Text only when there were good reasons for doing so. They recognized the importance of the well-established Hebrew Old Testament text of a.d. 100.

Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible (TOB), a modern-language French translation, was diligent in following the Masoretic Text as much as possible, not as a reversion to a non-critical approach to the text of the Old Testament but in recognition of their understanding of the textual situation at stage two in the development of the text, as set forth by the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. In their preface the translators explain that the traditional text (i.e., the Masoretic Text) is the basis of their work, yet they noted any place where they did not follow this text. They point out that in the present state of the scientific study of the Old Testament text, this official text of Judaism is the only text that is firmly established. The text also serves as a common basis for an “ecumenical” translation.

Die Gute Nachricht and Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible are two major recent translations that have consciously striven to follow the Masoretic Text as closely as possible, basing their view on recent manuscript discoveries (especially at Qumran) and on the principles established in the HOTTP committee. Of all the recent translations of the last decade, Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible deviates least from the Masoretic Text—with the possible exception of the Jewish Publication Society translation in English.

Before examining individual passages affected by Dead Sea Scroll discoveries in these modern Old Testament translations, it is important to survey the scope of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran and at nearby Dead Sea locations. A survey of the manuscript-by-manuscript description given in the next chapter shows that there are only about a dozen manuscripts which preserve large sections of the biblical books. But the limited evidence gleaned from the hundreds of poorly preserved manuscripts provides another dimension to the picture.

Scholars now recognize that the type of text found in the Masoretic Text was very persistent and stable, especially as compared to various recensions that fluctuated in their adherence to two types of text: (1) the Hebrew text on which the Old Greek translations were based, and (2) the Samaritan Pentateuch. Initially there was a tendency for scholars to characterize the Qumran biblical manuscripts as belonging to one of the three text types isolated in earlier Old Testament textual studies. Closer analysis now indicates that many of these manuscripts should not be pigeon-holed into existing categories. Bible translators need to weigh textual evidence in light of this interplay between unity and diversity of textual witnesses.

STAGES IN OLD TESTAMENT TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

HOTTP

HUBP

WALTKE

TALMON

SARNA

BARR

(1) Ur-text:

recoverable primarily through literary criticism, archaeology, and philology

(1) First stage:

(protol-biblical) “ends before the start of all ms documentation. Reconstruction of the Ur-text is not the supreme goal.”

(1) Compostion

(to 400 b.c.)

Double tendency:

centrifugal and centripetal

(1) Oral Phase

to mid-sixth century

“No longer possible to reconstruct the textual evolution …”

(1) The Earliest Period

to 300 b.c.

(1) Greek Translations

“little conscious striving to use constant equivalences”

(2) Accepted Text:

in forms accepted by various communities (to a.d. 70)

(2) extra-Masoretic 300 b.c.

and

(2) Preservation

(e.g., 1QIsab)

Revision:

three recensions and one mixed type developed

(2) Written Transmission

(2) Starting point of period two is determined by the fortuitous existence of manuscript documentation

(2) “an increasing desire for accuracy which it was thought would be attained through increased regularity in the equivalences used”

(3) Received Text

standardized by canon formation

(= proto-MT)

(3) proto-Masoretic

final stages of individual model manuscripts

(3) Standardization:

a.d. 70–1000

(3) Stage Three

“the pivot around which any investigation into the history of the Bible text turns, … progressive demarcation of books accepted as scripture.”

(3) Third Period

First century a.d. to ninth century

(3) “imitative style of translation … found, above all, in Aquila”

(4) Masoretic Text

(4) Masoretic text


 


 

(4) The major codexes: B19a, Aleppo, etc.

(4) “a positive preference for variety” (Jerome)

See Barthelemy: 1976

See Goshen-Gottstein: 1967

See Waltke: 1976

See Talmon: 1970

See Sarna: 1972

See Barr: 1979

PART TWO

DESCRIPTION OF OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS

Most of the biblical manuscripts discovered in the area of the Dead Sea since the late 1940s have now been published. Nine of the eleven caves at Qumran have yielded at least some biblical manuscripts. Caves 1, 4, and 11 have yielded the most important finds, both in quantity and in textual variety. Official publication of the Qumran manuscripts have appeared primarily in the series entitled Discoveries in the Judean Desert. Volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the nine published volumes (through 1992) bear the series title Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan—reflecting the political situation in the region at that time. Definitive publication of the earliest Qumran Cave 1 discoveries, as well as two important manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11, have also been published outside the Discoveries in the Judean Desert series. The Cave 1 manuscripts obtained by Israel include 1QIsab.

Most of the biblical manuscripts from Qumran Cave 4 have not been published in an official edition. However, the contents of the vast majority of these scrolls have been made known to the academic community in journal articles, dissertations, or elsewhere. A problem facing those who want to study the manuscripts is the fact that in some cases the publications do not give the actual text in its entirety, but only the variant readings that were considered significant by the author. Several recently published bibliographic guides provide a convenient guide to the relevant publications. These include Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study, revised edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). Eugene Ulrich’s article in Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989:207–228), “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran Cave 4: A Progress Report of Their Publication,” provides a comprehensive list of all known biblical manuscripts found in Cave 4.

The Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center (ABMC) in Claremont, California is an official depository site for photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Stephen Reed of ABMC has published Dead Sea Scrolls Inventory Project: Lists of Documents, Photographs and Museum Plates (1991–1992) in twelve fascicles:

1. Qumran Cave 1

2. Qumran Minor Caves

3. Murabbaʿat

4. Qumran Cave 4Q128–4Q186

5. Qumran Cave 4Q482–4Q520

6. 11Q

7. Qumran Cave 4 (4Q1–127) Biblical

8. Qumran Cave 4 (4Q521–4Q575) Starcky

9. Qumran Cave 4 (4Q364–4Q481) Strugnell

10. Qumran Cave 4 (4Q196–4Q363) Milik

11. Khirbet Mird

12. Wadi ed Daliyeh

fascicles in cave number order

Qumran Cave 1: Fascicle 1

Qumran Cave 2: Fascicle 2

Qumran Cave 3: Fascicle 2

Qumran Cave 4:

4Q1–127: Fascicle 7

4Q128–186: Fascicle 4

4Q187–195: (no information available)

4Q196–363: Fascicle 10

4Q364–481: Fascicle 9

4Q482–520: Fascicle 5

4Q521–575: Fascicle 8

Qumran Cave 5: Fascicle 2

Qumran Cave 6: Fascicle 2

Qumran Cave 7: Fascicle 2

Qumran Cave 8: Fascicle 2

Qumran Cave 9: Fascicle 2 (one papyrus fragment only)

Qumran Cave 10: Fascicle 2 (one ostracon only)

Qumran Cave 11: Fascicle 6

Khirbet Mird: Fascicle 11 (including NT Greek and Christian

    Palestinian Aramaic MSS)

Masada: Fascicle 14

Murabbaʿat: Fascicle 3

Nahal Hever: Fascicle 13

Wadi ed Daliyeh: Fascicle 12 (deeds, bullae, coins, and rings)

Wadi Seiyal: Fascicle 13

Each fascicle lists the manuscripts in document order and also gives the corresponding number of the photograph. Reed’s Inventory is especially important for the material that has not as yet been published. Fascicle 7 details the biblical manuscripts found in Cave 4 and is of particular interest to us. The documentation of the other unpublished Cave 4 material will also provide an important guide for researchers interested in the nonbiblical texts.

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS

by clarendon press, oxford, in the discoveries in the judean desert (of jordan) (djd) series:

DJD 1: Qumran Cave 1

DJD 2: Les grottes de Murabbaʿat

DJD 3: Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân (2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q, 8Q, 9Q, and 10Q)

All the manuscripts found in Cave 7 are in Greek, written on papyrus. Only one tiny scrap was found in each of caves 9 and 10.

DJD 4: The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11. 1965.

Sanders’s later edition, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithica, New York: Cornell U. Press, 1967), also contains “Fragment E,” identified as part of 11QPsa only after the publication of DJD 4.

DJD 5: Qumrân grotte 4. I (4Q158–4Q186).

No biblical texts, but thirteen biblical commentaries and several biblical paraphrases are included in this volume.

DJD 6: Qumrân grotte 4. II (4Q128–4Q157).

This collection includes phylacteries, mezuzot, and two Targum (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible) manuscripts.

DJD 7: Qumrân grotte 4. III (4Q482–4Q520).

No biblical texts; a few fragments from Jubilees and the Testament of Judah.

DJD 8: The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr).

DJD 9: Qumran Cave Four: Vol. 4. Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts.

By the American Schools of Oriental Research:

The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, Volume I: The Isaiah Manuscript [1QIsaa] and the Habakkuk Commentary [1QpHab] (New Haven, 1950).

These scrolls were republished with reproductions of John C. Trever’s original color photographs (Jerusalem: The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and The Shrine of the Book, 1972). They were rephotographed under the direction of E. Qimron and published in The Dead Sea Scrolls, M. Sekine, editor [text in Japanese] (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1979).

The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev), D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, editors. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns for the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1985).

By the Hebrew University, Jerusalem:

The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University [including 1QIsab]. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1955).

By the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, who purchased the publication rights to a group of scrolls from Cave 11:

Le Targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumrân [11QtgJob], J. P. M. van der Ploeg and A. S. van der Woude, editors (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971).

MAJOR PRELIMINARY EDITIONS

Ulrich, Eugene C. “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran [4QDana,b,c].” BASOR 286 (1987:17–36) and 274 (1989:3–26). Includes plates, transcription, and discussion of the texts.

Many other individual manuscripts have received preliminary publication in journal articles and other scholarly works. At times these works may include complete transcriptions with plates. Relevant bibliography will be given under the specific manuscript.

OTHER EDITIONS

By the Biblical Archaeological Society:

A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, editors. (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991).

DIRECTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

The following directory lists all of the known manuscripts found in the area of the Dead Sea, both from Qumran and other sources in the area. It is still possible that in the myriad of fragments housed in the Rockefeller Museum and in the many published photographs something will be discovered that contains biblical text, although it would be quite fragmentary. Rumors still persist that other major manuscripts have been withheld from view. This possibility seems quite unlikely, especially for biblical texts.

Another factor affecting the enumeration of Qumran manuscripts is the determination by scholars working on the texts that a manuscript formerly thought to be written by only one scribe actually represents two or more different manuscripts. This reevaluation has, for example, resulted in the identification of three different copies of Jeremiah formerly considered to be 4QJerb.

The entries for each manuscript are divided into a maximum of five sections. In cases where the manuscripts have not yet received scholarly evaluation, relevant information is not available. In these cases, we have written uncertain.

Name: lists the manuscript according to the system devised during the early stages of publication. Qumran manuscripts are designated Q, preceded by the number of the cave in which the manuscript was discovered. The caves are numbered chronologically by order of discovery, not by geographic relationship. Except for the first major scrolls discovered, each manuscript has been numbered according to the following sequence: (1) biblical manuscripts in the order of the Hebrew canon; (2) manuscripts with biblical content such as phylacteries and commentaries (pesharim); and (3) all other manuscripts. For Cave 4 the numbers are assigned in blocks of manuscripts as initially assigned to the editing committee.

Each manuscript is also usually given an abbreviation based on its content. For the biblical manuscripts these abbreviations are quite evident. For documents that were unknown before their discovery at Qumran these abbreviations are sometimes rather cryptic, especially to the uninformed. Where manuscripts have been published using the number system as well as the book abbreviation, the manuscript number is given in parentheses.

Other abbreviations used in the manuscript designations:

superscript letters = (as in 1QIsaa, b, c) designate different manuscripts of the same biblical book. The sequence of letters have been assigned in the order of identification, not book content.

gk/Gk = Greek Old Testament manuscripts

p = pesher (meaning “interpretation”), a commentary on a biblical book

paleo = Hebrew manuscripts written in archaic Hebrew orthography

pap = manuscript written on papyrus (all other manuscripts are on parchment)

par = paraphrase

tg = Aramaic Targums

Content: lists the contents of the manuscript. It must be kept in mind that in many cases the manuscript is very fragmentary and may only contain a few words, or even a few letters. In the chart of biblical manuscripts (pp. 87–103), verses extant for only a word or less are designated by {○}. While the occurrence of so little information may seem to be inconsequential, it may provide useful clues. For example, the existence of only a letter or two on the last line of a fragment can indicate that a particular clause is included (or not present) in the manuscript, while the opposite may be true in other manuscripts. Also, if the fragment can be located in relation to the margin, and the average line length can be determined (as is frequently the case), the textual critic can often determine with a fair degree of certainty what could or could not fit into the space before the tiny fragment. In cases where a manuscript has been studied, but only variants given, it may not be possible to determine where the extant text begins and ends in individual verses. These verses are marked with a ♦ in the index of Old Testament manuscripts (pp. 141–168). In the comments below, a question mark (?) immediately follows any verse that is questionable. The designation (=) in biblical citations provides equivalent English Bible versification.

Bibliography: provides only a brief guide to the manuscript. All of the biblical manuscripts except those found in Cave 4 have received official publication. The bibliography gives the volume number in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert series or other official publication (see pp. 43–44). These publications always include a complete transcription, photographs, and a full discussion of the characteristics of the manuscripts considered. In a few cases, publication of additional discoveries or significant reevaluations are also given in the bibliography (for an example, see 11QPsa).

In the case of Cave 4 manuscripts that await official publication, the following information is given: Plate number(s) from the Eisenman and Robinson (1991) edition (designated ER), followed by the Palestine Archaeological Museum (PAM) number. Generally, only the major plates are listed. Other fragments, sometimes scattered over numerous plates, are not listed here, but their existence is noted by a + following the list of plate numbers. A full list of plates can be found in Reed (1991–1992). Next are given references to major treatments that may contain the full text or a thorough evaluation of textual variants, as well as photographs. A large number of Cave 4 manuscripts have been treated extensively in a series of recent Harvard University doctoral dissertations. These dissertations are listed here and in the bibliography, although they may not be readily available.

Date: provides an approximation of the time when the manuscript was copied. This information is generally derived from official or preliminary official publications. As might be expected, dissenting opinions have been offered by various scholars. However, there is little doubt that the Qumran manuscripts were written no earlier than about 250 b.c. and no later than a.d. 75. Recent paleographic studies (see especially Tov [1986]) have demonstrated that not all of the manuscripts were written at Qumran.

The dating of biblical manuscrupts is crucial for their proper evaluation and consequent determination of the worth for textual criticism. One factor for determining the age of manuscripts is the archaeological environment in which they were found. For example, at Qumran there is evidence of an earthquake in 31 b.c. that resulted in the temporary abandonment of the community until it was rebuilt about the turn of the era. About seventy years later (in a.d. 70) Qumran was destroyed during the Jewish war and Roman invasion. Apparently a small garrison occupied Masada for several years until this fort fell. This archaelological history of the community seems to be confirmed by the coins found at the site (de Vaux, 1978:978–986). Although de Vaux’s archaeological work has been criticized by some, the general reconstruction of the history of the community has been established.

In any event, the evidence of the biblical manuscripts for the history of the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible remains important and would be little affected by minor adjustments in chronology. Assuming that the Dead Sea Scrolls found near the Qumran settlement were the product of that community, then the latest date for the manuscripts hidden in nearby caves is about a.d. 70. Although some scholars still question the connection of the Qumran community with the caves (for example, Golb [1980]), most agree that the connection is firmly established and the manuscripts can safely be assumed to have been written no later than the middle of the first century a.d. Even if the connection of the manuscripts with the Qumran community is accepted, there is paleographic and orthographic evidence that some of the manuscripts, including biblical texts, were brought to Qumran from the outside (Tov:1986). For example, Tov believes that all the biblical manuscripts written in paleo-Hebrew characters were brought in from the outside. The scrolls written at Qumran in Qumran orthography reflect a freer attitude to the text, using fuller spelling through the use of more vowel letters and introducing some new grammatical forms (1986:42–43).The paleographic dating of the manuscripts in this catalog follows a chronological frame of reference such as Hasmonean or Herodian, and a stylistic description—formal, semi-formal, semi-cursive, cursive. The categorizations are as follows:

Proto-Jewish Scripts (developed from early Aramaic): from the mid-third century b.c. to 175 b.c.

Early Hasmonean: c. 175–125 b.c.

Hasmonean: c. 125–100 b.c.

Late Hasmonean: c. 100–30 b.c.

Early Herodian: c. 30–25 b.c.

Herodian: c. 25 b.c.–a.d. 50

Late Herodian: c. a.d. 50–70

Post Herodian: c. a.d. 70

For further details on paleographic study as applied to the Qumran manuscripts, see part 1, pages 12–15. If the date is not given for a particular manuscript, it can be assumed that it is dated between 250 b.c. and a.d. 70.

Significance: describes both the textual character of the manuscript and its general significance to translation. Specific implications for translation are discussed in part 3. When this entry does not accompany a manuscript listed below, the reader can assume there was nothing significant to say about the text of that manuscript.

THE MANUSCRIPTS

QUMRAN CAVE 1

Name: 1QGen (= 1Q1)

Content: Genesis 1:18–21; 3:11–14; 22:13–15; 23:17–19; 24:22–24

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Name: 1QExod (= 1Q2)

Content: Exodus 16:12–16; 19:24–25; 20:1, 25–26; 21:1, 4–5

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Name: 1QpaleoLev (+Num) (= 1Q3)

Content: Leviticus 11:10–11; 19:30–34; 20:20–24; 21:24; 22:2–6; 23:4–8; other scattered fragments

Bibliography: DJD 1; McLean (1982) distinguishes three different manuscripts, which he designates 1QpaleoLeva, 1QpaleoLevb, and 1QpaleoNum.

Date: Birnbaum (1950:27) estimates that this manuscript may be as old as the second half of the fifth century b.c., but this paleo-Hebrew hand is difficult to date, since the scribe was consciously imitating an older style of writing. Hanson (1964:41) proposes a date somewhere between 125 and 75 b.c.

Name: 1Qpaleo (Lev+)Num (= 1Q3)

Content: Numbers 1:48–50; other scattered fragments possibly from chapters 27 and 36

Bibliography: DJD 1; McLean (1982)

Date: (See preceding reference)

Name: 1QDeuta (= 1Q4)

Content: Deuteronomy 1:22–25; 4:47–49; 8:18–19; 9:27–28; 11:27–30; 13:1–6, 13–14; 14:21, 24–25; 16:4, 6–7

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Name: 1QDeutb (= 1Q5)

Content: Deuteronomy 1:9–13; 8:8–9; 9:10; 11:30–31; 17:16; 21:8–9; 24:10–16; 25:13–18; 28:44–48; 29:9–20; 30:19–20; 31:1–10, 12–13; 32:17–29; 33:12–24

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Name: 1QJudg (= 1Q6)

Content: Judges 6:20–22; 8:1(?); 9:2–6, 28–31, 40–43, 48–49

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Significance: Based on line-length considerations, the phrase “and Abimelech remained at Arumah” in the MT (Judges 9:41) was probably missing in this manuscript.

Name: 1QSam (= 1Q7)

Content: 1 Samuel 18:17–18; 2 Samuel 20:6–10; 21:16–18; 23:9–12

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Significance: Several proper names are spelled the same as in Chronicles.

Name: 1QPsa (= 1Q10)

Content: Psalms 86:5–8; 92:12–14; 94:16; 95:11–96:2; 119:31–34, 43–48, 77–79

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Name: 1QPsb (= 1Q11)

Content: Psalms 126:6; 127:1–5; 128:3

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Significance: The tetragrammaton (i.e., four letters written as YHWH to represent Yahweh) is written in paleo-Hebrew letters. There are a few orthographic variants from proto-MT.

Name: 1QPsc (= 1Q12)

Content: Psalm 44:3–5, 7, 9, 23–25

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Significance: The manuscript is quite fragmentary, but it appears to follow the full orthography typical of Qumran manuscripts.

Name: 1QIsaa

Content: Isaiah 1:1–31; 2:1–22; 3–4 complete; 5:1–30; 6:1–13; 7:1–25; 8:1–23; 9:1–20; 10:1–34; 11–44 complete; 45:1–25; 46–65 complete; 66:1–24

Bibliography: Burrows (1950), Trever (1972)

Date: c. 100 b.c.

Significance: The text is generally similar to proto-MT, but with some significant variants. Many of these variants are in orthography, with a strong preference for plene (full) spellings. This characteristic has led to the belief that this scroll was a “popular” copy because the plene spelling makes reading easier. This was the first Dead Sea Scroll to receive widespread attention. The RSV committee, which was nearing completion of their work at the time, adopted thirteen readings from 1QIsaa.

Name: 1QIsab (includes 1Q8)

Content: Isaiah 7:22–25; 8:1; 10:17–19; 12:3–6; 13:1–8, 16–19; 15:3–9; 16:1–2, 7–11; 19:7–17, 20–25; 20:1; 22:11–18, 24–25; 23:1–4; 24:18–23; 25:1–8; 26:1–5; 28:15–20; 29:1–8; 30:10–14, 21–26; 35:4–5; 37:8–12; 38:12–22; 39:1–8; 40:2–3; 41:3–23; 43:1–13, 23–27; 44:21–28; 45:1–13; 46:3–13; 47:1–14; 48:17–22; 49:1–15; 50:7–11; 51:1–10; 52:7–15; 53:1–12; 54:1–6; 55:2–13; 56:1–12; 57:1–4, 17–21; 58:1–14; 59:1–8, 20–21; 60:1–22; 61:1–2; 62:2–12; 63:1–19; 64:1, 6–8; 65:17–25; 66:1–24

Bibliography: Sukenik (1955); additional fragments in DJD 1

Date: Herodian

Significance: The text is quite close to proto-MT. Rarely utilized for support of variant readings, but it confirms the existence of a stable proto-MT text type.

Name: 1QEzek (= 1Q9)

Content: Ezekiel 4:16–17; 5:1

Bibliography: DJD 1

Date: First century b.c.

Significance: Preserves only about eight words. A larger space in the manuscript at the end of Ezekiel 4:17 corresponds to a petuhah (an “open” paragraph marker) found in the MT.

Name: 1QDana (= 1Q71)

Content: Daniel 1:10–17; 2:2–6

Bibliography: Trever (1965)

Date: c. a.d. 70

Name: 1QDanb (= 1Q72)

Content: Daniel 3:22–30

Bibliography: Trever (1965)

Date: Herodian

Significance: On the basis of paleography, Trever (1970) considers this the latest Qumran manuscript.

QUMRAN CAVE 2

Name: 2QGen (= 2Q1)

Content: Genesis 19:27–28; 36:6, 35–37

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: The two small fragments show no divergencies from the MT.

Name: 2QExoda (= 2Q2)

Content: Exodus 1:11–14; 7:1–4; 9:27–29; 11:3–7; 12:32–41; 21:18–20(?); 26:11–13; 30:21(?), 23–25; 32:32–34

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian period

Significance: Contains several readings supported by the LXX.

Name: 2QExodb (= 2Q3)

Content: Exodus 4:31; 12:26–27(?); 18:21–22; 19:9; 21:37; 22:1–2, 15–19; 27:17–19; 31:16–17; 34:10

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: Uses plene spelling; the tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew script. The text differs from proto-MT in several morphological details and finds occasional support in the ancient versions.

Name: 2QExodc (= 2Q4)

Content: Exodus 5:3–5

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: uncertain

Significance: The fragment contains only three words, each at the beginning of a new line.

Name: 2QpaleoLev (= 2Q5)

Content: Leviticus 11:22–29

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: First century b.c.

Significance: Uses plene spelling; verses 25–26 agree with several LXX MSS and the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Name: 2QNuma (= 2Q6)

Content: Numbers 3:38–41, 51; 4:1–3

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: Fragment one contains only the opening letters of each of ten lines. On the basis of line-length considerations, there may have been a textual variant in verse 39 relating to “and Aaron,” which is marked in the MT with `puncta extraordinaria, a series of dots the Masoretes wrote above the letter to mark a word about which there were textual or doctrinal reservations. The word is lacking in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Syriac. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain that it was missing here as well.

Name: 2QNumb (= 2Q7)

Content: Numbers 33:47–53

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: early Herodian

Significance: Some spellings support the pronunciation known from the Samaritan Pentateuch, but there are no significant textual variants.

Name: 2QNumc (= 2Q8)

Content: Numbers 7:88

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: The single fragment preserves only four words.

Name: 2QNumd? (= 2Q9) [may be part of 2QNumb]

Content: Numbers 18:8–9

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: uncertain

Significance: The fragment preserves parts of only six words.

Name: 2QDeuta (= 2Q10)

Content: Deuteronomy 1:7–9

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: First century b.c.

Significance: There are only small fragments of four lines. There are no notable textual characteristics.

Name: 2QDeutb (= 2Q11)

Content: Deuteronomy 17:12–15

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: The manuscript was written in full (plene) orthography, typical of the manuscripts of the Qumran community.

Name: 2QDeutc (= 2Q12)

Content: Deuteronomy 10:8–12

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: Written in full orthography, the manuscript often agrees with the LXX.

Name: 2QRutha (= 2Q16)

Content: Ruth 2:13–23; 3:1–8; 4:3–4

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: First half of the first century a.d.

Significance: The text generally agrees with the MT. Supports the qere (i.e., the marginal reading in the MT) of Ruth 3:3.

Name: 2QRuthb (= 2Q17)

Content: Ruth 3:13–18

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: c. 50 b.c.

Significance: The text and orthography generally agree with the MT.

Name: 2QJob (= 2Q15)

Content: Job 33:28–30

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: The remnants of the four or five words in this small fragment agree with the MT.

Name: 2QPs (= 2Q14)

Content: Psalms 103:2–11; 104:6–11

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: The text of fragment one, which contains the opening lines of Psalm 103, is written in red.

Name: 2QJer (= 2Q13)

Content: Jeremiah 42:7–11, 14; 43:8–11; 44:1–3, 12–14; 46:27–28; 47:1–7; 48:7, 25–39, 43–45; 49:10

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: Although some readings agree with the LXX, the order of the chapters follows the proto-MT. The differences between the MT and LXX of Jeremiah are significant and extensive. Overall, the LXX is one-eighth shorter than the MT and the arrangement of chapters is different. See the 4QJer manuscripts for additional evidence.

QUMRAN CAVE 3

Name: 3QPs (= 3Q2)

Content: Psalm 2:6–7

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: First century a.d.

Significance: Since it preserves only five words, it is too fragmentary to characterize.

Name: 3QLam (= 3Q3)

Content: Lamentations 1:10–12; 3:53–62

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: The tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew script. Although quite fragmentary, the spaces available in the lacunae are consistent with the MT.

Name: 3QEzek (= 3Q1)

Content: Ezekiel 16:31–33

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: It is quite fragmentary—only eleven letters are preserved.

QUMRAN CAVE 4

Name: 4QGen (+Exod)a

Content: portions of Genesis chapters 22, 27, 34–37, 39–40, 45–49

Bibliography: plates: Genesis: ER 658 (42.151), 1093 (43.009); Exodus: ER 665 (42.158), 1090 (43.006) +, 1094 (43.010); Davila (1988, 1991, forthcoming)

Date: c. 125–100 b.c.

Name: 4QGenb

Content: Genesis 1:1–27; 2:14–19; 4:2–4; 5:13 or 14

Bibliography: plate: ER 1088 (43.004); Davila (1990, forthcoming)

Date: a.d. 50–68 or possibly later

Significance: The text is proto-MT, except for one orthographic variant (Davila: forthcoming).

Name: 4QGenc

Content: portions of Genesis 40 and 41

Bibliography: plates: ER 1622 (43.698), 1721 (44.016); Davila (1988, 1990, forthcoming)

Date: Herodian

Significance: The manuscript is very fragmentary and poorly preserved, although it usually agrees with the MT.

Name: 4QGend

Content: Genesis 1:18–27

Bibliography: plates: ER 662 (42.155), 974 (42.725); Davila (1988, 1990, forthcoming)

Date: c. 50–25 b.c., late Hasmonean formal handwriting

Significance: The text is proto-MT except for orthographic variants. The manuscript is very fragmentary and poorly preserved (Davila 1990).

Name: 4QGene

Content: portions of Genesis 36–37, 40–43, 49

Bibliography: plate: ER 1089 (43.005); Davila (1988, 1990, forthcoming)

Date: late Hasmonean to early Herodian

Name: 4QGenf

Content: Genesis 48:1–11

Bibliography: plate: ER 976 (42.727); Davila (1988)

Date: late Hasmonean

Name: 4QGeng

Content: Genesis 1:1–11, 13–22; 2:6–7 or 18–19

Bibliography: plate: ER 972 (42.723); Davila (1990, forthcoming)

Date: late Hasmonean

Significance: The manuscript has a number of interesting variants from proto-MT (Davila 1990).

Name: 4QGenh h (1), h (2), h (par), h (title) See Davila (1990)

Content: h (1): Genesis 1:8–10; h (2): 2:17–18; h (par): 12:4–5; h (title): a tab with the word Genesis

Bibliography: plates: ER 560 (41.996), 972 (42.723), 1212 (43.157); Davila (1988, 1990, forthcoming)

Date: late Hasmonean to early Herodian

Significance: Four tiny fragments that may not belong to the same manuscript.

Name: 4QGenj

Content: Portions of Genesis 41–43, 45

Bibliography: plate: ER 1091 (43.007); Davila (1988)

Date: late Hasmonean to early Herodian

Name: 4QGenk

Content: Genesis 1:9, 14–16, 26–27 (transposed); 2:1–3; 3:1–2

Bibliography: plate: ER 1092 (43.008); Davila (1988, 1990, forthcoming)

Date: Herodian formal handwriting (c. a.d. 1–30)

Significance: In Genesis 1:9 this manuscript has the same longer reading as in the Old Greek tradition, which is not included in MT and 4QGenb, g.

Name: 4QpaleoGen (+Exod)l

Content: Genesis 50:26(?). Although only a few letters of one word survive, these letters, which occur in the last verse of Genesis, are followed by several blank lines and are positioned in the fragment to clearly indicate that this scroll originally contained both the book of Genesis and Exodus. See 4Qpaleo(Gen+)Exod below for the contents of the rest of this manuscript.

Bibliography: McLean (1982); DJD 9, plates I–VI

Date: c. 100 b.c.

Name: 4QpaleoGenm (formerly 4QpaleoGenl)

Content: Genesis 26:21–26

Bibliography: DJD 9, plate VI

Date: c. 150 b.c.

Significance: There are only a few orthographic variants from the MT in this small fragment.

Name: 4QExod (+Gen)a

Content: portions of Exodus 1–8 (or 9)

Bibliography: plates Exodus: ER 665 (42.158), 1090 (43.006) +, 1094 (43.010); Genesis: ER 658 (42.151), 1093 (43.009); Davila (1988, 1991, forthcoming)

Date: c. 125–100 b.c.

Name: 4QExodb (formerly designated 4QExoda)

Content: Exodus 1:1–5

Bibliography: plates: ER 664 (42.157, 42.728); ALQ, plate opposite p. 141

Date: uncertain

Significance: This small fragment contains a number of textual variants which, according to Cross, places it in the Egyptian textual tradition, whose primary witness is the LXX. This manuscript may point to an Egyptian text type superior to the Hebrew text used by the Septuagint translators. Cross considers “Egyptian” one of the three recensions of the period, with a geographic orientation.

Name: 4QExodc

Content: Exodus 15:16–18 + (8 fragments)

Bibliography: plates: ER 666 (42.159), 667 (42.160), 982 (42.734), 1095 (43.011), 1097 (43.013); Cross (1968)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QExodd

Content: Exodus 13:15–16

Bibliography: plate ER 1096 (43.012)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QExode

Content: Includes Exodus 13:3–5, 15–16; full contents to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plate ER 1096 (43.012)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QExodf

Content: Exodus 40:8–27

Bibliography: plate: ER 916 (42.586); ALQ 33, 121; Freedman Textus 2 (1962) 93; SWDS 14, 23

Date: mid third century b.c.—”the oldest biblical manuscript in existence (Cross 1965:23).”

Name: 4QExodg

Content: Includes Exodus 14:21–27; full contents to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plates: ER 975 (42.726), 1096 (43.012)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QExodh

Content: Includes Exodus 6:4–5; full contents to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plate: ER 1096 (43.012)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QExodj

Content: to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plate: ER 926 (42.603)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QExodk

Content: Includes Exodus 26:8–9 (or 2–3); full contents to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plate: ER 1096 (43.012)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4Qpaleo (Gen+)Exodl

Content: Exodus 1:1–5; 2:10, 22–25; 3:1–4, 17–21; 8:13–15, 19–21; 9:25–29, 33–35; 10:1–5; 11:4–10; 12:1–11, 42–46; 14:15–24; 16:2–7, 13–14, 18–20, 23–25, 26–31, 33–35; 17:1–3, 5–11; 18:17–24; 19:24–25; 20:1–2; 22:23–24; 23:5–16; 25:7–20; 26:29–37; 27:1, 6–14; 28:33–35, 40–42; 36:34–36. There are an additional 26 fragments which are too small or too poorly preserved to be identified with any certainty.

Bibliography: plates: ER 1013 (42.802), 1084 (42.976), 1014 (42.803); McLean (1982); Sanderson (1990)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QpaleoExodm

Content: Exodus 6:25–30; 7:1–19, 29; 8:1 [5, EVV], 12–22 [16–26, EVV]; 9:5–16, 19–21, 35; 10:1–12, 19–28; 11:8–10; 12:1–2, 6–8, 13–15, 17–22, 31–32, 34–39; 13:3–7, 12–13; 14:3–5, 8–9, 25–26; 15:23–27; 16:1, 4–5, 7–8, 31–35; 17:1–16; 18:1–27; 19:1, 7–17, 23–25; 20:1, 18–19; 21:5–6, 13–14, 22–32; 22:3–4, 6–7, 11–13, 16–19, 20–30; 23:15–16, 19–31; 24:1–4, 6–11; 25:11–12, 20–29, 31–34; 26:8–15, 21–30; 27:1–3, 9–14, 18–19; 28:3–4, 8–12, 22–24, 26–28, 30–43; 29:1–5, 20, [v. 21 is omitted] 22–25, 31–41; 30:10 [follows chapter 26]; 30:12–18, 29–31, 34–38 [in MT order]; 31:1–8, 13–15; 32:2–19, 25–30; 33:12–23; 34:1–3, 10–13, 15–18, 20–24, 27–28; 35:1; 36:21–24; 37:9–16

Bibliography: Sanderson (1986); DJD 9, plates VII–XXXIII

Date: c. 200–175 b.c.

Significance: This manuscript has provided important evidence for a new understanding of the early history of the text of the Old Testament. 4QpaleoExodm shares a number of readings with the Samaritan Pentateuch as well as the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX. Initially scholars were struck by the many agreements with the Samaritan Pentateuch. It was generally believed that the differences between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the proto-MT were frequently the result of sectarian Samaritan revision. To be sure, there are a few examples of theological “bias,” such as in Exodus 20:17, where the tenth commandment imports the statement from Deuteronomy 11:29 regarding the importance of Mt. Gerizim as the center of worship. Most differences, however, reflect nonsectarian differences which are now known to have existed already in the first century b.c. or earlier. According to Sanderson there were four major early witnesses to the text of Exodus: 4Q, the Samaritan Pentateuch, proto-MT, and the LXX. However, there is still no scholarly consensus whether these witnesses should be described as distinct recensions or as evidence of a plurality of text types during this crucial era in the history of the text of the Old Testament. See Sanderson (1986:325–343) for a complete list of variants.

Name: 4QpaleoExodn is now designated 4QpaleoGen+Exodl

Name: 4QpapGkExodpar (+4Q127)

Content: It is clear from words such as Moses, Egypt, and Pharaoh easily identified in the eighty fragments of this manuscript that the text deals with the events of the exodus. However, computer searches have failed to identify specific passages in Exodus. Thus, the manuscript is described as a paraphrase of Exodus. There are several other Qumran manuscripts that are biblical paraphrases.

Bibliography: Ulrich (1990); DJD 9, plate XLVII

Date: c. 150 b.c.–a.d. 50

Significance: This previously unknown work adds to our witnesses another biblical paraphrase—a genre that was popular at the turn of the era. DJD 9 includes other biblical paraphrases.

Name: 4QLev (+Num)a

Content: Exodus 15:20–23; 16:22–28; 27:10–12; full contents to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plates: ER 992 (42.744), 995 (42.747), 1118 (43.034), 1119 (43.035), 1123 (43.039), 1134 (43.050)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QLevb

Content: Leviticus 1:11–17; 2:1–2, 5–8; 22:9–33; 23:2–8, 11–14, 16–22; 24:3–23; 25:28–29, 45–49; full contents to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plates: ER 1122 (43.038), 1126 (43.042), 1127 (43.043)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QLevc

Content: Leviticus 4:13–14; full contents to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plates: ER 239 (41.298), 1125 (43.041), 1212 (43.157), 1410 (43.437)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QLevd

Content: Leviticus 14:26–30, 33–37; 15:20–24; 17:1–12

Bibliography: plates: ER 989 (42.741), 1124 (43.040); Tov (1992b) (Tov gives PAM no. 43.046, but contents correspond to ER 1124)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QtgLev

Content: Leviticus 16:12–15, 18–21

Bibliography: DJD 6

Date: c. 100 b.c.

Name: 4QgkLeva (= Rahlfs 801)

Content: Leviticus 26:2–16

Bibliography: Skehan (1957); DJD 9, plate XXXVIII

Date: c. 100 b.c.

Significance: Ulrich (1984) lists variants for this and all other Greek Old Testament manuscripts found at Qumran.

Name: 4QpapGkLevb

Content: Leviticus 1:11; 2:3–5, 7–8(?); 3:4, 7, 9–14; 4:4, 6–8, 10–11, 18–19, 26–28, 30; 5:6, 8–10, 16–19; 6:1–5 [5:24, MT].

Bibliography: DJD 9, plates XXXIX–XLI.

Date: probably first century b.c.

Significance: See Ulrich (1984) for variants.

Name: 4QNum (+Lev)a

Content: Includes Numbers 1:36–40; 2:31–32; 3:5–8, 10–18; 4:2–3, 5–11, 40–44, 47; 5:3–4; 8:7–12; 9:3–10, 19–20; 12:4–11; 13:18; full contents to be published in DJD 10

Bibliography: plates: ER 992 (42.744), 995 (42.747), 1118 (43.034), 1119 (43.035), 1123 (43.039), 1134 (43.050)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QNumb

Content: Numbers 11:31–35; 12:1 (?)–6, 8–11; 13:7, 10–13, 15–24; 15:41–16:11; 17:12–17; 18:25–19:6; 20:12–13b (= Sam. add), 16–17, 19–29(?); 21:1 (?)–2, 12a–13a (= Sam. add); 22:5–21, 31–34, 37–38, 41–23:4, 6, 13–15, 21–22, 27–24:10; 25:4–8, 16–18; 26:1–5, 7–10, 12, 14–34, 62–27:5, 7–8, 10, 18–19, 21–23b (= Sam. add); 28:13–17, 28, 30–31; 29:10–13, 16–18, 26–30; 30:1–3, 5–9, 15–16; 31:2–6, 21b–25, 30–33, 35–36, 38, 43–44, 46–32:1, 7–10, 13–17, 19, 23–30, 35, 37–39, 41; 33:1–4, 23, 25, 28, 31, 45, 47–48, 50–52; 34:4–9, 19–21, 23; 35:3–5, 12, 14–15, 18–25, 27–28, 33–36:2, 4–7

Bibliography: plates: ER 197 (41.191), 204 (41.198), 735 (42.244), 998–9 (42.750–1), 1003–4 (42.755–6), 1130 (43.406), 1132–3 (43.048–9) +; Jastram (1990)

Date: c. 30 b.c.–a.d. 20

Significance: There are three clearly distinguishable textual traditions in Numbers: the MT; the Samaritan Pentateuch, which differs primarily from MT in some expansionistic elements and interpolations from Deuteronomy; and the LXX. 4QNumb provides evidence for even greater diversity. This text includes the major Samaritan Pentateuch interpolations, but it also shows some agreements with the LXX, and even more significantly, it also contains some unique expansions. The diversity of textual traditions for Numbers is striking.

Name: 4QgkNum (= Rahlfs 803)

Content: Numbers 3:40–42; 4:6–9, 11–14

Bibliography: plates: ER 1327 (PAM 43.291) + ER 603 (PAM 42.039) and ER 518 (PAM 41.933); Skehan (1957:155–156); DJD 9, plates XLII–XLIII

Date: uncertain

Significance: See Ulrich (1984) for variants.

Name: 4QDeut a

Content: Deuteronomy 23:26(?); 24:1–8

Bibliography: plates: ER 1154 (43.070), 1186 (43.102); White (1988)

Date: c. 175–150 b.c.

Significance: This manuscript is one of the earliest copies of Deuteronomy found at Qumran. Although fragmentary, the text appears to be quite close to the presumed original form of the text of Deuteronomy.

Name: 4QDeut b

Content: Deuteronomy 29:24–27; 30:3–14; 31:9–17, 24–32:3

Bibliography: plates: ER 1148 (43.064), 1215 (43.160), 1763 (44.083); Duncan (1989)

Date: early Hasmonean (c. 150–100 b.c.)

Significance: This manuscript does not demonstrate a clear textual affilitation, but there may be room for the OG longer text of 31:14, 15 in the gap between two fragments.

Name: 4QDeut c

Content: Deuteronomy 3:25–26; 4:13–17, 31–32; 7:3–4; 8:1–5; 9:11–12, 17–19, 29; 10:1–2, 5–8; 11:2–4, 9–13, 18–19; 12:18–19, 26, 30–31; 13:5–7, 11–12, 16; 15:1–5, 15–19; 16:2–3, 5–11, 20–17:7, 15–18:1; 26:19; 27:1–2, 24–26; 28:1–14, 18–20, 22–25, 29–30, 48–50, 61; 29:17–19; 31:16–19; 33:3

Bibliography: plates: ER 954 (42.705), 1149 (43.065), 1151 (43.067), 1153 (43.069), 1721 (44.016); White (1988)

Date: c. 125–100 b.c.

Significance: This manuscript preserves the largest amount of Deuteronomy among the Cave 4 material. Based on line-length studies, it appears that Deuteronomy 32 was written in poetic lines. Its readings generally agree with the LXX.

Name: 4QDeut d

Content: Deuteronomy 2:26–33; 3:14–29; 4:1

Bibliography: plates: ER 1150 (43.066), 1215 (43.160), 1258 (43.221); White (1988)

Date: c. 100 b.c.

Significance: The orthography of this manuscript is defective―that is, the use of vowel letters is even less than in the proto-MT.

Name: 4QDeut e

Content: Deuteronomy 3:24; 7:12–16, 21–26(?); 8:1–16

Bibliography: plate: 1152 (43.068); Duncan (1989)

Date: c. 50–25 b.c.

Significance: These small fragments contain no significant variants.

Name: 4QDeut f

Content: Deuteronomy 4:23–27; 7:21–26; 8:2–14; 9:6–7; 17:17–18; 18:6–10, 18–22; 19:17–21; 20:1–6; 21:4–12; 22:12–19; 23:21–26; 24:2–7; 25:3–9; 26:18–27:10

Bibliography: plates: ER 1146 (43.062), 1149 (43.065); White (1988)

Date: 75–50 b.c.

Name: 4QDeut g

Content: Deuteronomy 9:12–14; 23:18–20; 24:16–20; 25:1–5, 14–19; 26:2–5; 28:21–24, 27–29

Bibliography: plates: ER 1147 (43.063), 1215 (43.160); White (1988)

Date: c. a.d. 25

Significance: The text and orthography are identical to the MT.

Name: 4QDeut h

Content: Deuteronomy 1:1–17, 22–23, 29–41, 43–2:5, 28–30; 19:21; 31:9–10; 33:9–11

Bibliography: plate: ER 960 (42.711); Duncan (1989)

Date: c. 50–1 b.c.

Name: 4QDeut i

Content: Deuteronomy 20:9–13; 21:23; 22:1–9; 23:6–17, 22–26; 24:1

Bibliography: plate: ER 1150 (43.066); White (1988)

Date: c. 75 b.c.

Significance: Contains some significant agreements with OG.

Name: 4QDeut j

Content: Deuteronomy 5:1–11, 13–15, 21–33; 6:1–3; 8:5–10; 11:6–10, 12–13; 32:7–8—with Exodus 12:43–51; 13:1–5(?).

Bibliography: plates: ER 1135 (43.051), 1137–8 (43.053–4); Duncan (1989)

Date: c. a.d. 50

Name: 4QDeutk1, k2 (may be three MSS)

Content:
k1: Deuteronomy 5:28–31; 11:6–13; 32:17–18, 22–23, 25–27;

k2: Deuteronomy 19:8–16; 20:6–19; 23:22–25; 24:1–3; 25:19; 26:1–4, 18–19

Bibliography: plate: ER 1142 (43.056); Duncan (1989); Christensen (1991); Tov (1986:53)

Date: Herodian

Significance: Fragments 1, 2, 9, and 10 (4QDeut k1) are larger writing than fragments 3–8 (4QDeut k2). Otherwise, there are a number of similarities in the handwriting.

Name: 4QDeut l

Content: Deuteronomy 10:12, 14; 28:67–68; 29:2–5; 31:12; 33:1–2; 34:4–6, 8

Bibliography: plate: ER 1136 (43.052); Duncan (1989)

Date: c. 50 b.c., semi-cursive

Name: 4QDeut m

Content: Deuteronomy 3:18–21; 4:32–33; 7:19–22

Bibliography: plates: ER 933 (42.632), 963 (42.714); Duncan (1989)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QDeut n (All Souls Deuteronomy)

Content: Deuteronomy 5:1–33; 6:1; 8:5–10

Bibliography: plates: ER 941 (42.642), 950–1 (42.701–2); SWDS, plate 19 (called 4QDeut m); White (1988, 1990a, 1990b); Eshel (1991)

Date: early Herodian (c. 30 b.c.)

Significance: The manuscript has full orthography.

Name: 4QDeut o

Content: Deuteronomy 4:31–34; 5:1–3, 8–9; 28:15–18, 33–35, 47–49, 51–52, 58–62; 29:22–25

Bibliography: plate: ER 1139 (43.055); Duncan (1989)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QDeutp

Content: Deuteronomy 6:4–6, 8–10

Bibliography: plates: ER 1139 (43.055), 1147 (43.063); Duncan (1989)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QDeut q

Content: Deuteronomy 32:37–43

Bibliography: plate: ER 932 (42.632); Skehan (1954)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QpaleoDeutr

Content: Deuteronomy 1:8(?); 7:2–7, 16–25; 11:28, 30–32; 12:1–5, 11–12, 22; 13:19; 14:1–4, 19–22, 26–29; 15:5–6, 8–10; 19:2–3; 22:3–7, 12–15; 28:15–18, [omits v. 19], 20; 31:29; 32:6–8, 10–11, 13–14, 33–35; 33:2–8, 29; 34:1. There are 21 other fragments that are too small or poorly preserved to identify.

Bibliography: McLean (1982); DJD 9, plates XXXIV–XXXVI

Date: c. 50 b.c.

Name: 4QpaleoDeuts

Content: Deuteronomy 26:14–15

Bibliography: DJD 9, plate XXXVII

Date: c. 250 b.c.

Significance: Agrees with MT in text and orthography.

Name: 4QgkDeut (= Rahlfs 819)

Content: Deuteronomy 11:4 (fragment a). Fragments b to f are too small to identify.

Bibliography: Ulrich (1984); DJD 9, plate XLII

Date: possibly c. 150 b.c.

Name: 4QJosha

Content: Fragments from Joshua 2–10, including 6:5–10; 7:12–15; 8:3–5, 7–9; 10:3–11

Bibliography: plates: ER 1141 (43.057), 1144 (43.060); Tov (1986:321–2); Greenspoon (1992)

Date: uncertain

Significance: “fragmentary in nature, but rather extensive and often different from proto-MT. The ending of chapter 8 … differs much from all other known sources (Tov 1986:322).”

Name: 4QJoshb

Content: Joshua 2:11–12; 3:15–16; 4:1–3; 17:11–15

Bibliography: plate: ER 1145 (43.061); Boling (1975:110); Greenspoon (1992)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QJudga

Content: Judges 6:2–6, 11–13

Bibliography: plate: ER 1143 (43.059); Trebolle (1989)

Date: uncertain

Significance: Lacks wlgmlyhm (and their camels) of MT, in agreement with Old Latin, in v. 5. The Old Latin has other significant textual variants in this chapter.

Name: 4QJudgb

Content: Judges 19:5–7; 21:12–25

Bibliography: plates: ER 1143 (43.059), 1212 (43.157); Trebolle (1991)

Date: Herodian, formal hand

Significance: The text generally agrees with the proto-MT. See 1QJudg for a witness that differs somewhat from the proto-MT.

Name: 4QRutha

Content: to be published in DJD 12

Bibliography: plate: ER 1174 (43.090) +

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QRuthb

Content: Ruth 1:1–2, 12–15

Bibliography: plates: ER 1174 (43.090), 1216 (43.161)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QSama

Content: 1 Samuel 1:2–28; 2:1–6, 8–11, 13–36; 3:1–4, 18–20; 4:9–12; 5:8–12; 6:1–7, 12–13, 16–18, 20–21; 7:1; 8:9–20; 9:6–8, 11–12, 16–24; 10:3–18, 25–27; 11:1, 7–12; 12:7–8, 14–19; 14:24–25, 28–34, 47–51; 15:24–32; 17:3–6; 24:4–5, 8–9, 14–23; 25:3–12, 20–21, 25–26, 39–40; 26:10–12, 21–23; 27:8–12; 28:1–2, 22–25; 30:28–30; 31:2–4; 2 Samuel 2:5–16, 25–27, 29–32; 3:1–8, 23–39; 4:1–4, 9–12; 5:1–16 (omit 4–5); 6:2–9, 12–18; 7:23–29; 8:2–8; 10:4–7, 18–19; 11:2–12, 16–20; 12:4–5, 8–9, 13–20, 30–31; 13:1–6, 13–34, 36–39; 14:1–3, 18–19; 15:1–6, 27–31; 16:1–2, 11–13, 17–18, 21–23; 18:2–7, 9–11; 19:7–12; 20:2–3, 9–14, 23–26; 21:1–2, 4–6, 15–17; 22:30–51; 23:1–6; 24:16–20

Bibliography: plates: ER 1191–3 (43.107–9), 1196–1200 (43.109–117), 1202–3 (43.119–120), 1205–7 (43.122–4) +; Ulrich (1978)

Date: c. 50–25 b.c.

Significance: Although the manuscript preserves only 10 percent of the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, it has made a substantial contribution to our understanding of the history of the textual tradition. There are a large number of agreements with the LXX, although it is not a pure representative of the Egyptian recension (to use Cross’s terminology). The MT of Samuel is generally considered to be quite problematic, with numerous omissions. This Qumran manuscript demonstrates the existence of a Hebrew text that is considered to be superior to the MT in many passages. For a different evaluation that favors many MT readings over readings in this manuscript, see Pisano (1984). See McCarter (1980, 1984) for a full discussion of the textual variants.

Name: 4QSamb

Content: 1 Samuel 16:1–11; 19:10–17; 20:27–42; 21:1–10; 23:9–17

Bibliography: plates: ER 922 (42.599), 1156 (43.072), 1160 (43.076) +; Cross (1955), McCarter (1980); Andersen and Freedman (1989)

Date: uncertain

Significance: See McCarter (1980) for a full discussion of the textual variants.

Name: 4QSamc

Content: 1 Samuel 25:30–32; 2 Samuel 14:7–33; 15:1–15

Bibliography: plates: ER 155 (43.071), 1161 (43.077) +; Ulrich (1979)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QKgs (Earlier publications list as a)

Content: 1 Kings 7:31–41; 8:1–9, 16–18

Bibliography: plate: ER 1163 (43.079) +; McKenzie Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 19 (1986):15–34; Trebolle (1992a)

Date: uncertain

Significance: Contains an additional phrase in 8:16, “to be a prince over,” not found in the MT but included in the Chronicles parallel passage (2 Chronicles 6:5).

Name: 4QChr

Content: 2 Chronicles 28:27; 29:1–3

Bibliography: plate: ER 1173 (43.089) +; Trebolle (1992b)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QEzra

Content: Ezra 4:2–6, 9–11; 5:17; 6:1–5

Bibliography: plate: ER 1173 (43.089) +; Ulrich (1992)

Date: c. 50 b.c.

Significance: “… demostrates that the Massoretic textus receptus … has been very faithfully preserved from one of the plural forms of the texts which circulated in the Second Temple period (Ulrich 1992:153).”

Name: 4QJoba

Content: portion of Job chapter 36

Bibliography: plate: ER 1180 (43.096) +

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QJobb

Content: Includes Job 13:4–5; full contents to be published in DJD 12

Bibliography: plates: ER 1178 (43.094) +

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QpaleoJobc

Content: 13:18–20, 23–27; 14:13–18

Bibliography: McLean (1982); DJD 9, plate XXXVII

Date: c. 225–150 b.c.

Significance: Very conservative orthography; no internal matres lectionis (vowel letters). The MT, in contrast, uses internal vowel letters six times in the few words preserved here (DJD 9:155).

Name: 4QtgJob

Content: Job 3:5–9; 4:16–21; 5:1–4

Bibliography: DJD 6

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QPsa

Content: Psalms 5:9–13; 6:1–4; 25:15; 31:24–25; 33:1–12; 35:2, 14–20, 26–28; 36:1–9; 38:2–12, 16–23; 71:1–14; 47:2; 53:4–7; 54:1–6; 56:4; 62:13(?); 63:2–4; 66:16–20; 67:1–7; 69:1–19

Bibliography: plate: ER 1111 (43.027) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. 150 b.c.

Significance: The text is very close to proto-MT, although the sequence of Psalms deviates from the Hebrew canon.

Name: 4QPsb

Content: Psalms 91:5–8, 12–15; 92:4–8, 13–15; 93:5; 94:1–4, 8–14, 17–18, 21–22; 96:2; 98:4; 99:5–6; 100:1–2; 102:5(?), 10–29; 103:1–6, 9–14, 20–21; 112:4–5; 113:1; 115:2–3; 116:17–19; 118:1–3, 6–11, 18–20, 23–26, 29

Bibliography: plates: ER 589–90 (42.025–6), 1116 (43.032) +; Skehan (1964)

Date: Herodian

Significance: The orthography is close to the proto-MT.

Name: 4QPsc

Content: Psalms 16:7–9; 18:3–14, 16–18, 33–41; 27:12–14; 28:1–2, 4; 35:27–28; 37:18–19; 45:8–11; 49:1–17; 50:14–23; 51:1–5; 52:6–11; 53:1

Bibliography: plate: ER 1107 (43.023), 1211 (43.156) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. a.d. 50–68

Significance: The orthography is very close to the proto-MT.

Name: 4QPsd

Content: Psalms 146:10(?); 147:1–3, 13–17, 20; 104:1–5, 8–11, 14–15, 22–25, 33–35

Bibliography: plate: ER 1105 (43.021) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. 50 b.c.

Significance: The orthography is close to the proto-MT.

Name: 4QPse

Content: Psalms 76:10–12; 77:1; 78:6–7, 31–33; 81:2–3; 86:10–11; 88:1–4; 89:44–46, 50–53; 104:1–3, 20–21; 105:22–24, 36–45; 109:13; 115:15–18; 116:1–3; 120:6; 125:2–5; 126:1–5; 129:8; 130:1–3

Bibliography: plate: ER 1112 (43.028) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. a.d. 50

Significance: The manuscript has expanded orthography.

Name: 4QPsf

Content: Psalms 22:14–17; 107:2–4, 8–11, 13–15, 18–19, 22–30, 35ff.; 109:4–6, 25–28; Apostrophe to Zion; Apostrophe to Judah; Eschatological Hymn

Bibliography: plates: ER 1110 (43.026), 1550 (43.603) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: late Hasmonean

Significance: The manuscript has expanded orthography with inconsistent use of waw as a vowel letter.

Name: 4QPsg

Content: Psalm 119:37–43, 44–46, 49–50, 73, 81–83, 90ff.

Bibliography: plate: ER 1110 (43.026) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. a.d. 50

Significance: The manuscript has expanded orthography with extensive use of waw as a vowel letter.

Name: 4QPsh

Content: Psalm 119:10–21

Bibliography: plate: ER 1110 (43.026) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. a.d. 50

Significance: The manuscript has expanded orthography with extensive use of waw as a vowel letter.

Name: 4QPsj

Content: Psalms 48:1–7; 49:6, 9–12, 15(?), 17(?)

Bibliography: plate: ER 1114 (43.030) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. a.d. 50

Significance: The manuscript has expanded orthography with extensive use of waw as a vowel letter.

Name: 4QPsk

Content: Psalms 26:7–12; 27:1; 30:9–13; 135:7–16;

Skehan classifies fragments from chapters 26, 27, and 30 as 4QPsr

Bibliography: plate: ER 1114 (43.030) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: 100–50 b.c.

Significance: The manuscript has sparse orthography.

Name: 4QPsl

Content: Psalm 104:3–5, 11–12

Bibliography: plate: ER 1114 (43.030) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. 50–1 b.c.

Significance: The manuscript has sparse orthography; it uses shin (the penultimate letter of the Hebrew alphabet) for samek (the fifteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet).

Name: 4QPsm

Content: Psalms 93:3–5; 95:3–6; 97:6–9; 98:4–8

Bibliography: plate: ER 1114 (43.030) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: probably Herodian

Significance: The manuscript is too fragmentary to characterize.

Name: 4QPsn

Content: Psalms 135:6–8, 11–12; 136:23

Bibliography: plate: ER 1114 (43.030) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: c. 25 b.c.

Name: 4QPso

Content: Psalms 114:7–8; 115:1–4; 116:5–10

Bibliography: plate: ER 1114 (43.030) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: probably Herodian

Significance: The manuscript is too fragmentary to characterize.

Name: 4QPsp

Content: Psalm 143:6–8

Bibliography: plate: ER 1114 (43.030) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: probably Herodian

Significance: The manuscript is too fragmentary to characterize.

Name: 4QPsq

Content: Psalms 31:25 [Ps. 32 lacking]; 33:1–18; 35:4–20

Bibliography: Skehan (1978)

Date: c. a.d. 50

Significance: The manuscript has full orthography for use of waw.

Name: 4QPsr

Content: Psalms 26:7–12; 27:1; 30:9–13

Bibliography: plate: ER 1114 (43.030) +; Skehan (1978)

Date: probably Herodian

Significance: The manuscript is too fragmentary to characterize.

Name: 4QPss

Content: Psalms 5:8–13; 6:1

Bibliography: plates: ER 1112–3 (43.028–29), 1211 (43.156), 968 (42.719); Skehan (1981)

Date: c. a.d. 50

Significance: The manuscript has expanded Qumran orthography.

Name: 4QPs frg1

Content: Psalm 42:5

Bibliography: plate: ER 641 (42.081); Skehan (1978)

Date: c. a.d. 50

Name: 4QPs frg2: Sanders (1967)

Content: Psalm 88:12

Bibliography: plate: ER 1105 (43.021)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QPs frg3: Sanders (1967); frg2: Skehan (1978)

Content: Psalm 99:1

Date: late first century b.c.

Name: 4QPs89

Content: Psalm 89:20–22, 26–28, 31

Bibliography: Milik (1966), Skehan (1978)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QProva

Content: Proverbs 1:27–33; 2:1; parts of chapters 14 and 15(?)

Bibliography: plates: ER 1100 (43.016), 1511 (43.563); Skehan (1959)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QProvb

Content: Includes Proverbs 14:31–35; 15:1–5, 7–8, 20–31; full contents to be published in DJD 12

Bibliography: plates: ER 1100 (43.016), 1511 (43.563)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QQoha

Content: 5:13–17; 6: (1?), 3–8, 12; 7:1–10, 19–20

Bibliography: plate: ER 1176 (43.092); Muilenberg (1954a); Ulrich (1992b), with plate

Date: c. 175–125 b.c.

Significance: “… minor but occasional variants from what later became the traditional text [MT] (Ulrich 1992b:153).”

Name: 4QQohb

Content: 1:10–14 (15?)

Bibliography: plate: ER 1174 (43.090); Ulrich (1992b), with plate

Date: c. 50 b.c.–25 a.d.

Significance: See 4QQoha.

Name: 4QCanta

Content: Includes 3:7–11; 4:1–7; full contents to be published in DJD 12

Bibliography: plate: ER 1181 (43.097)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QCantb

Content: Includes 2:9–17; 3:1–2; 4:1–11, 14–5:1; full contents to be published in DJD 12

Bibliography: plate: ER 1177 (43.093)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QCantc

Content: Includes 3:7–8; full contents to be published in DJD 12

Bibliography: plate: ER 1181 (43.097)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QIsaa

Content: Isaiah 1:1–3; 2:7–10; 4:5–6; 6:4–7; 11:12–15; 12:4–6; 13:4–6; 17:9–14; 19:9–14; 20:1–6; 21:1–2, 4–16; 22:13–25; 23:1–12

Bibliography: plate: ER 1099 (43.015) +; Skehan (1979); Muilenberg (1954b) for chapters 22 and 23

Date: c. 25 b.c.

Significance: Many of the Isaiah manuscripts from Cave 4 are quite fragmentary. They are fully collated in F. J. Morrow’s dissertation (1973), where all Isaiah manuscripts known to him are treated in a single chapter-by-chapter survey. Morrow also categorizes the textual variants (pages 191–204) and finds, in addition to orthographic variants, numerous examples of “modernizations” in both vocabulary and grammar. However, the text of Isaiah does not display clearly differentiated recensions or text types such as we have in Exodus, 1 and 2 Samuel, and Jeremiah.

Name: 4QIsab

Content: Isaiah 1:1–6; 2:3–16; 3:14–22; 5:15–28; 9:10–11; 11:7–9; 12:2; 13:3–18; 17:8–14; 18:1, 5–7; 19:1–25; 20:1–4; 21:11–14; 22:24–25; 24:2; 26:1–5, 7–19; 35:9–10; 36:1–2; 37:29–32; 39:1–8; 40:1–4, 22–26; 41:8–11; 43:12–15; 44:19–28; 45:20–25; 46:1–3; 49:21–23; 51:14–16; 52:2, 7; 53:11–12; 61:1–3; 64:5–11; 65:1; 66:24

Bibliography: plates: ER 1101 (43.017), 1115 (43.031) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: c. 25 b.c., poorly written

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsac

Content: Isaiah 9:3–12; 10:23–32; 11:4–11, 15–16; 12:1; 14:1–5; 14:13; 22:10–14; 23:8–18; 24:1–15, 19–23; 25:1–2, 8–12; 30:8–17; 33:2–8, 16–23; 45:1–4, 6–13; 48:10–13, 17–19; 50:7–11; 51:1–16; 52:10–15; 53:1–3, 6–8; 54:3–17; 55:1–6; 66:20–24

Bibliography: plates: ER 1104 (43.020), 1106 (43.022), 1113 (43.029) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: c. a.d. 50–68

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsad

Content: Isaiah 46:10–13; 47:1–6, 8–9; 48:8–22; 49:1–15; 52:4–7; 53:8–12; 54:1–11; 57:9–21; 58:1–3, 5–7

Bibliography: plates: ER 1102–3 (43.018–9) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: early Herodian

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsae

Content: Isaiah 8:2–14; 9:17–20; 10:1–10

Bibliography: plate: ER 1109 (43.025) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: c. 25–1 b.c.

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsaf

Content: Isaiah 1:10–16, 18–31; 2:1–3; 5:13–14, 25; 6:3–8, 10–13; 7:16–18, 23–25; 8:1, 4–11; 20:4–6; 22:15–22, 25; 24:1–3; 28:6–9, 16–18, 22, 28–29; 29:1–7, 8(?)

Bibliography: plate: ER 1108 (43.024) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: late Hasmonean

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsag

Content: Isaiah 42:14–25; 43:1–4, 17–24

Bibliography: plates: ER 1098 (43.014), 1217 (43.162) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: c. 25–1 b.c.

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsah

Content: Isaiah 7:14–15; 8:11–14; 42:2, 4–11; 56:7–8; 57:5–8; 59:15–16; 60:20–22; 61:1–2

Bibliography: plates: ER 1098 (43.014), 1109 (43.025) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: second century b.c.

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsaj

Content: Isaiah 1:1–6

Bibliography: plate: ER 1113 (43.029) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: c. 50–25 b.c.

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsak

Content: Isaiah 28:26–29; 29:1–9

Bibliography: plate: ER 1103 (43.019) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: late Hasmonean

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsal

Content: Isaiah 2:1–4; 7:17–20; 11:14–15; 12:1–4, 6; 13:1–4; 14:1–12, 21–24

Bibliography: plates: ER 1109 (43.025), 1327 (43.291) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: early Herodian

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsam

Content: Isaiah 61:3–6

Bibliography: plate: ER 1098 (43.014) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: late Hasmonean

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsan

Content: Isaiah 58:13–14

Bibliography: plate: ER 1098 (43.014) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: late Hasmonean

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsao

Content: Isaiah 14:28–32; 15:1; 16:7–8(?)

Bibliography: plate: ER 1098 (43.014) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: Herodian

Significance: The manuscript displays the final form of the mem (the thirteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet) in the middle of words.

Name: 4QIsap

Content: Isaiah 5:28–30

Bibliography: plate: ER 1098 (43.014) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: first century b.c.

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsaq

Content: Isaiah 54:11–13

Bibliography: plate: ER 1102 (43.018) +; Skehan (1979)

Date: Herodian

Significance: See 4QIsaa.

Name: 4QIsar

Content: uncertain; not listed in Skehan (1979) or in Reed’s inventory (1991–2)

Name: 4QJera

Content: Jeremiah 7:29–34; 8:1 (?)–6; 9:1 (?)–2, 7–14; 10:9–14; 11:3–6; 12:3–6, 13–17; 13:1–7; 14:4–7; 15:1–2; 17:8–26; 18:15–23; 19:1; 22:4–16

Bibliography: plates: ER 1159 (43.075), ER 1253 (43.216) +; Janzen (1973), not all columns reported. Tov (1989) reports fifteen columns between 7:1 and 26:10

Date: c. 200 b.c. (Cross); late third or early second century b.c. (Yardeni)

Significance: The manuscript generally follows proto-MT. As noted above in the entry for 2QJer, there are significant differences between the MT and LXX texts of Jeremiah. The LXX is shorter by at least one-eighth, and a number of chapters are arranged in a different sequence. One of the striking aspects of the Jeremiah manuscripts found in Cave 4 is the existence of copies of the book that follow proto-MT (including 4QJera and 4QJerc) and 4QJerb, which resembles the LXX. This evidence clearly demonstrates that both editions of Jeremiah were in existence before the Christian era and that a single community possessed both editions.

Name: 4QJerb

Content: Jeremiah 9:22–26; 10:1–18

Bibliography: plates: ER 154 (41.146), 759 (42.280), 1162 (43.078) +; Tov (1989, 1992d). Yardeni (1990) discusses in detail the orthography of this manuscript.

Date: Hasmonean (Cross)

Significance: The text resembles LXX arrangement and shortness; the orthography is proto-MT.

Name: 4QJerc

Content: Jeremiah 4:5, 13–16; 8:1–3, 21–23; 9:1–5; 10:12–13; 19:8–9(?); 20:1–5(?), 7–9(?), [12]–15; 21:7–10; 22:4–6, 10–28; 25:7–8, 15–17, 24–26; 26:10–13; 27:1–3, 13–15; 30:[4]–24; 31:1–14, [15]–26; 33:16–20

Bibliography: plates: ER 1185 (43.101), ER 1187–90 (43.103–6) +; Tov (1991)

Date: uncertain

Significance: The text is very close to proto-MT. Most of the differences are insignificant. See Tov (1990:272–273) for a full collation and categorization of the textual variants.

Name: 4QJerd (earlier reported as part of 4QJerb)

Content: Jeremiah 43:2–10

Bibliography: plates: ER 65 (40.602), 154 (41.146), 759 (42.280), 1162 (43.078); Tov (1989, 1992d)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QJere (earlier reported as part of 4QJerb)

Content: Jeremiah 50:4–6

Bibliography: plates: ER 220 (41.278), 565 (42.001), 759 (42.280), 1162 (43.078); Tov (1989)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QLam (sometimes reported as 4QLama)

Content: Lamentations 1:1–16

Bibliography: plates: ER 1179 (43.095), 1216 (43.161); Cross (1983)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QEzeka

Content: Ezekiel 10:5–15, 17–22; 11:1–10; 23:14–18, 44–47; 41:3–6

Bibliography: plate: ER 1166 (43.088) +; Lust (1986)

Date: Herodian

Significance: The text generally agrees with the MT.

Name: 4QEzekb

Content: Ezekiel 1:10–13, 16–17, 20–24

Bibliography: plate: ER 1172 (43.088) +; Lust (1986)

Date: early Herodian

Significance: The text generally agrees with the MT.

Name: 4QEzekc

Content: Includes Ezekiel 24:2–3; full contents to be published in DJD 12

Bibliography: plate: ER 1172 (43.088)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QDana

Content: Daniel 1:16–20; 2:9–11, 19–49; 3:1–2; 4:29–30; 5:5–7, 12–14, 16–19; 7:5–7, 25–28; 8:1–5; 10:16–20; 11:13–16

Bibliography: Ulrich (1987) with plates

Date: late Hasmonean or early Herodian

Significance: In Daniel 1:20 there appears to be a gap in the extant fragments that would be about the size necessary to include the longer text found in the Greek manuscript 967. The Greek Daniel exists in two distinctively different versions. The “Theodotionic” version supplanted the Old Greek version in the LXX, but the other version is found in a few manuscripts, including 967 (Chester Beatty Papyrus IX).

Name: 4QDanb

Content: Daniel 5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22; 6:8–22, 27–29; 7:1–6, 11(?), 26–28; 8:1–8, 13–16

Bibliography: Ulrich (1989) with plates

Date: c. a.d. 20–50

Name: 4QDanc

Content: Daniel 10:5–9, 11–16, 21; 11:1–2, 13–17, 25–29

Bibliography: Ulrich (1989) with plates

Date: c. 125–100 b.c. This would date this manuscript only about fifty years younger than the date of the autograph of the book of Daniel given by many scholars, i.e., about 168–165 b.c., the time of the Maccabean revolt.

Name: 4QDand

Content: only a few small scraps (Ulrich 1990:30)

Bibliography: plates: ER 1128 (43.044), 1168 (43.084)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QDane

Content: only a few small scraps (Ulrich 1990:30)

Bibliography: plate: ER 1178 (43.094)

Date: uncertain

Name: 4QXIIa

Content: Zechariah 14:18; Malachi 2:10–3:24 (=4:6 EVV); Jonah 1:1–2, 8–9, 16; 2:7; 3:2 (may have followed Malachi)

Bibliography: plates: ER 1182–4 (43.098–100), 1257 (43.220) +; Fuller (1988, 1991)

Date: early Hasmonean, semi-cursive; c. 100–50 b.c.

Significance: The MS has two unique readings: 2:14 may be superior to proto-MT; 2:16b probably inferior. It occupies an intermediate position between proto-MT and LXX (Fuller 1991).

Name: 4QXIIb

Content: Zephaniah 1:1–2; 2:13–15; 3:19–20; Haggai 1:1–2; 2:2–4

Bibliography: plate: ER 1171 (43.087) +; Fuller (1988)

Date: 150–125 b.c.; early Hasmonean hand

Name: 4QXIIc

Content: Hosea 2:13–15; 3:2–4; 4:1–5:1; 13:4–8, 15; 14:1–6; Joel 1:11–20; 2:1, 8–23; 4:6–21; Amos 2:11–16; 3:1–15; 4:1–2; 6:13–14; 7:1–16; Zephaniah 2:15; 3:1–2; Malachi 3:6 (?)–7

Bibliography: plates: ER 1195 (43.112), 1201 (43.118) +; Fuller (1988)

Date: c. 75 b.c.

Significance: There is “a clear affiliation with [O]G, but there is no clear indication that the base texts of M[T] and [O]G differed radically (Fuller 1988:104).” The manuscript has plene (full) orthography.

Name: 4QXIId

Content: Hosea 1:7–9; 2:1–5

Bibliography: plate: ER 1175 (43.091) +; Sinclair (1980)

Date: Hasmonean. Of the Qumran biblical manuscripts this script is perhaps the most difficult to date (Fuller 1988:106).

Significance: The text agrees with the MT.

Name: 4QXIIe

Content: Haggai 2:20–21; Zechariah 1:4–6, 9–10, 13–14; 2:10–14; 3:4–10; 4:1–4; 5:8–6:5; 8:3–4, 6–7; 12:7–12

Bibliography: plates: ER 1194 (43.110), 1257 (43.220) +; Fuller (1988)

Date: c. 75 b.c.; late Hasmonean

Significance: Closely related to OG, sharing a number of inferior readings (Fuller 1988:140).

Name: 4QXIIf

Content: Micah 5:1–2; Jonah 1:6–8, 10–16

Bibliography: plate: ER 1175 (43.091) +; Fuller (1988)

Date: c. 50 b.c.; late Hasmonean; formal hand

Significance: The text of Jonah is quite uniform in the ancient witnesses, including 4QXIIf. This manuscript does contain one unique reading in Micah 5:1(2): lʾ for MT ly.

Name: 4QXIIg

Content: contains parts of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Zephaniah, and Jonah; largest and perhaps most poorly preserved Minor Prophets scroll from cave 4 (Fuller 1988)

Bibliography: plates: ER 537–8 (41.966–7), 543 (41.976), 546 (41.980), 562 (41.998), 1083 (42.975) +; Fuller (1988)

Date: probably late Hasmonean

Name: 4QXII?

Content: Hosea 13:15b–14:1, 3–6 (according to Testuz)

Bibliography: Testuz (1955)

Date: uncertain

QUMRAN CAVE 5

Name: 5QDeut (= 5Q1)

Content: Deuteronomy 7:15–24; 8:5–20; 9:1–2

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: first part of second century b.c.

Significance: There are some textual similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch; the section divisions differ from the MT.

Name: 5QKgs (= 5Q2)

Content: 1 Kings 1:1, 16–17, 27–37

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Hasmonean

Significance: This manuscript has the same text as the MT, which is the same as the LXX in 1 Kings 1. Thus, there are no significant variants.

Name: 5QPs (= 5Q5)

Content: Psalm 119:99–101, 104, 113–120, 138–142

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: first century a.d.

Significance: The first letters in the right margin of two columns show that the manuscript of this Psalm preserved the acrostic arrangement. The samek (the fifteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet) and tsade (the eighteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet) sections are preserved in the fragments.

Name: 5QIsa (= 5Q3)

Content: Isaiah 40:16, 18–19

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: uncertain

Significance: The fragment is too small to characterize.

Name: 5QLama (= 5Q6)

Content: Lamentations 4:5–8, 11–15, 19–22; 5:1–12

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: first century b.c.

Significance: This manuscript has the same text as the MT, which is the same as the LXX in Lamentations 4. Thus, there are no significant variants.

Name: 5QLamb (= 5Q7)

Content: Lamentations 4:17–19

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: first century b.c.

Significance: Quite fragmentary; the MS preserves the kethib reading (i.e., the reading in the text as opposed to the reading in the margin of the MT) in Lamentations 4:17.

Name: 5QXII (= 5Q4)

Content: Amos 1:3–5

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: first century a.d.

Significance: Preserves one word supported by LXX, against the MT, in Amos 1:3 (hrwt—meaning “those who are pregnant”).

QUMRAN CAVE 6

Name: 6QpaleoGen (= 6Q1)

Content: Genesis 6:13–21

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: uncertain

Significance: The text and orthography correspond closely with the MT.

Name: 6QpaleoLev (= 6Q2)

Content: Leviticus 8:12–13

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: uncertain

Significance: Difficult to determine because the fragment is poorly preserved. It has a few vowel letters not found in the MT, but there are no textual variants.

Name: 6QpapDeut(?) (= 6Q3)

Content: Deuteronomy 26:19(?)

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: uncertain

Significance: The manuscript preserves only one word and parts of two additional letters.

Name: 6QpapKgs (= 6Q4)

Content: 1 Kings 3:12–14; 12:28–31; 22:28–31; 2 Kings 5:26; 6:32; 7:8–10, 20; 8:1–5; 9:1–2; 10:19–21

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: 150–100 b.c.

Significance: There are some readings with support from the LXX.

Name: 6QpapPs (= 6Q5)

Content: Psalm 78:36–37(?)

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: uncertain

Significance: Parts of only three words are preserved; identification is uncertain.

Name: 6QCant (= 6Q6)

Content: Song of Solomon 1:1–7

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: c. a.d. 50

Significance: There are occasional agreements with Vulgate and Syriac.

Name: 6QpapDan (= 6Q7)

Content: Daniel 8:16, 17(?), 20, 21(?); 10:8–16; 11:33–36, 38

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: c. a.d. 50

Significance: Though very poorly preserved, it generally agrees with the proto-MT.

QUMRAN CAVE 7

Name: 7QpapGkExod (= 7Q1)

Content: Exodus 28:4–7

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: c. 100 b.c.

Significance: The text is generally close to the proto-MT.

Name: 7Q5

Content: Zechariah 7:4–5 according to Spottorno; Mark 6:52–53(?) and other NT fragments according to O’Callaghan

Bibliography: O’Callaghan (1972); Spottorno (1992)

Date: perhaps c. a.d. 50

Significance: José O’Callaghan began a controversy when he identified the Qumran papyrus fragment as part of the Gospel of Mark (6:52–53). If this identification is accepted, another very small fragment, containing only a few letters, could be located in Mark 4:28. O’Callaghan also proposed an identification of 7Q8 as a fragment of James 1:23–24, based on his reading of this very small fragment. His identifications have received very little support. O’Callaghan’s views have recently been revived by Carsten P. Thiede in his book The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? (1992). By offering different readings of several letters which are poorly preserved, Spottorno (1992) locates this fragment in Zechariah 7:4–5 with a textual reading from the Lucianic recension.

QUMRAN CAVE 8

Name: 8QGen (= 8Q1)

Content: Genesis 17:12–19; 18:20–25

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: Herodian

Significance: There is an interlinear insert at Genesis 18:25 that reads the same as the LXX.

Name: 8QPs (= 8Q2)

Content: Psalms 17:5–9, 14; 18:6–9, 10–13

Bibliography: DJD 3

Date: first century a.d.

Significance: The text and orthography correspond to the proto-MT.

QUMRAN CAVE 11

Name: 11QLev

Content: Leviticus 9:23–10:2

Bibliography: van der Ploeg (1968)

Date: uncertain

Name: 11QpaleoLev

Content: Leviticus 4:24–26; 10:4–7; 11:27–32; 13:3–9, 39–43; 14:16–21, 52–57; 15:2–5; 16:2–4, 34; 17:1–5; 18:27–30; 19:1–4; 20:1–6; 21:6–11; 22:21–27; 23:22–29; 24:9–14; 25:28–36; 26:17–26; 27:11–19

Bibliography: Freedman (1985); Puech (1989)

Date: inconsistency in script, but similar to 4QpaleoExodm—c. 200 b.c. (Freedman 1985:15)

Significance: “Fifteen unique readings that are inferior to MT (Hartley 1992: xxix).

Name: 11QtgJob

Content: Job 17:14–16; 18:1–4; 19:11–19, 29(?); 20:1–6; 21:1–10, 20–28; 22:2–9, 16–22; 24:12–17, 25; 25:1–6; 26:1–2, 10–14; 27:1–4, 11–20; 28:4–9, 13, 21–28; 29:7–16, 24–25; 30:1–4, 13–20, 27–31; 31:1, 8–16, 26–32, 40; 32:1–3, 11–17; 33:6–16, 24–32; 34:6–17, 24–34; 35:6–15; 36:7–16, 23–33; 37:10–19; 38:3–13, 23–34; 39:1–11, 20–29; 40:5–14, 15(?), 23–31; 41:7–17, 26; 42:1–2 (+40:5), 4–6, 9–11

Bibliography: van der Ploeg (1971); Sokoloff (1974)

Date: Herodian

Name: 11QPsa

Content: (the numbering of the Psalms reflects the sequence in the MS) Psalms 101:1–8; 102:1–2, 18–29; 103:1; 109:21–31; 118:25–29; 104:1–6, 21–35; 147:1–2, 18–20; 105:1–12, 25–45; 106:1–12, 25–45; 148:1–12; 121:1–8; 122:1–9; 123:1–2; 124:7–8; 125:1–5; 126:1–6; 127:1; 128:4–6; 129:1–8; 130:1–8; 131:1; 132:8–18; 119:1–6, 15–25, 37–49, 59–73, 82–96, 105–112; 135:1–9, 17–21; 136:1–16, 26; 118:1, 15, 16, 8, 9, 29(transposed); 145:1–7, 13–21; 139:8–24; 137:1, 9; 138:1–8; 154:3–19; Plea for Deliverance; Sirach 51:13–30; 93:1–3; 141:5–10; 133:1–3; 144:1–7, 15; 155:1–19; 142:4–8; 143:1–8; 149:7–9; 150:1–6; Hymn to the Creator; 2 Samuel 23:7; David’s Compositions; Psalms 140:1–5; 134:1–3; 151 (or 151A); 152 (or 151B)

Bibliography: DJD 4; Sanders (1967). Sanders edited both the DJD 4 volume and the 1967 edition. The latter publication includes “Fragment E,” which Yadin had purchased for Israel. He recognized it as a part of 11QPsa when the bulk of the scroll was published in DJD 4. Fragment E includes portions of Psalms 118, 104, 147, and 105.

Date: c. a.d. 25–50

Significance: This scroll preserves large portions of twenty-eight columns and other large fragments. The tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew characters. One of the most striking features is the fact that the Psalms are not arranged in the same sequence as the Hebrew Bible. Further, several other Psalms, some which were known from the ancient versions and others hitherto unknown in modern times, are intermingled with the canonical Psalms. Sanders concluded that the arrangement of the Psalms in 11QPsa demonstrates that the third part of the Hebrew canon, in which the book of Psalms is found, was still fluid and not yet closed in the first century a.d. 11QPsb, 4QPsf, and 4QPse also follow a different sequence of Psalms. While many scholars agree with Sanders, Skehan (1978) believes 11QPsa is “a liturgical complex” and points to the fact that the Psalms appear to be arranged in thematic groupings.

Name: 11QPsb

Content: (the numbering of the Psalms reflects the sequence in the MS) Psalms 141:10; 133:1–3; Plea for Deliverance; 144:1–2; 118:1(?), 15–16

Bibliography: van der Ploeg (1985–87)

Date: uncertain

Name: 11QPsc

Content: Psalms 2:1–6; 9:3–7; 12:5–8; 13:2–6; 14:1–6; 17:9–15; 18:1–12; 43:1–3; 77:18–21; 78:1

Bibliography: van der Ploeg (1985–87)

Date: uncertain

Name: 11QPsc (Sanders’s additions—see above)

Content: Psalms 35:15–28; 36:1–13; 37:1–40; 38:1–23; 39:1–14

Bibliography: Sanders (1967:145) assigns fragments from 11QPsb,c,d differently than van der Ploeg. In addition, Sanders reports additional fragments from his 11QPsc, as listed here.

Date: uncertain

Name: 11QPsd

Content: Psalms 39:13–40:1; 59:5–8; 68:1–5, 16–18; 78:5–12; 81:4–10

Bibliography: van der Ploeg (1985–87)

Date: uncertain

Name: 11QPse

Content: Psalm 37:1–4

Bibliography: van der Ploeg (1985–87)

Date: uncertain

Name: 11QPsApa

Content: Psalm 91:1–16 (preceded by apocryphal Psalms)

Bibliography: van der Ploeg (1965)

Date: uncertain

Name: 11QEzek

Content: Ezekiel 4:3–5, 9–10; 5:11–17; 7:9–12; 10:11

Bibliography: Brownlee (1963)

Date: c. 55–25 b.c.

MASADA

Name: Mas Gen (or MasJub)

Content: Genesis 46:7–11. Talmon thinks this fragment is actually from the Book of Jubilees, a biblical paraphrase.

Bibliography: Yadin (1965, 1977); Talmon (1989)

Date: This and the other biblical manuscripts found at Masada were found in a location associated with the Jewish revolt of a.d. 66–73, establishing the latest possible date for the copying of the manuscripts. The Genesis fragment is dated to the first century b.c. by Yadin.

Significance: According to Yadin, it contains several slight textual variations from the MT.

Name: Mas Leva

Content: Leviticus 4:3–9

Bibliography: Yadin (1965)

Date: uncertain, but before a.d. 73

Significance: The text corresponds throughout to the MT.

Name: Mas Levb

Content: portions of Leviticus 8–12

Bibliography: Yadin (1965)

Date: uncertain, but before a.d. 73

Significance: The text is identical to the MT, with spaces between the chapters.

Name: Mas Deut

Content: Deuteronomy 33:17–27; 34:2–6

Bibliography: Yadin (1977)

Date: uncertain, but before a.d. 73

Significance: According to Yadin, the text is virtually identical with the traditional biblical texts.

Name: Mas Psa (M1039–1160)

Content: Psalms 81:3–17; 82:1–8; 83:1–19; 84:1–13; 85:1–10 (Sanders and Nebe: 1–6)

Bibliography: Yadin (1965)

Date: late Herodian

Significance: The text is the same as MT, except Psalm 83:6, which reads ʾlhy (gods) for ʾhly (tents).

Name: Mas Psb

Content: Psalm 150:1–6

Bibliography: Yadin (1977)

Date: uncertain, but before a.d. 73

Significance: The text is identical to the MT.

Name: Mas Ezek

Content: fragments of Ezekiel 35–38

Bibliography: Hart (1990) fn. 14

Date: uncertain, but before a.d. 73

Significance: According to Hart, “In the majority of cases even the paragraph divisions are the same as those found in the Leningrad or Aleppo Codex.”

MURABBAʿAT

Name: (1)Mur Deut (= Mur2)

Content: Deuteronomy 10:1–3; 11:2–3; 12:25–26; 14:29–15:1 (or 15:2)

Bibliography: DJD 2

Date: Herodian

Significance: The text corresponds to the MT.

Name: (2)Mur Gen (= Mur1)

Content: Genesis 32:4–5, 30, 33 (=32)–33:1; 34:5–7, 30–35:1, 4–7

Bibliography: DJD 2

Date: probably no later than a.d. 132, the time of the Second Jewish Revolt.

Significance: The fragments of (2)Mur Gen, (2)Mur Exod, and (2)Mur Num are probably from the same scroll. The text is virtually identical to the MT.

Name: (2)Mur Exod (= Mur1)

Content: Exodus 4:28–31; 5:3; 6:5–11

Bibliography: DJD 2

Date: uncertain

Significance: See comments on (2)Mur Gen above.

Name: (2)Mur Num (= Mur1)

Content: Numbers 34:10; 36:7–11

Bibliography: DJD 2

Date: uncertain

Significance: See comments on (2)Mur Gen above.

Name: (2)Mur Isa (= Mur3)

Content: Isaiah 1:4–14

Bibliography: DJD 2

Date: first century a.d.

Significance: The text is identical to the MT.

Name: (2)Mur XII (= Mur88)

Content: Joel 2:20, 26–27; 3:1–5; 4:1–16; Amos 1:5–15; 2:1; 6:1; 7:3–16; 8:4–7, 11–14; 9:1–15; Obadiah 1–21; Jonah 1:1–16; 2:1–11; 3:1–10; 4:1–11; Micah 1:1–16; 2:1–13; 3:1–12; 4:1–14; 5:1, 5–14; 6:1–7, 11–16; 7:1–20; Nahum 1:1–14; 2:1–14; 3:1–19; Habakkuk 1:3–15; 2:5–10, 18–20; 3:1–19; Zephaniah 1:1, 11–18; 2:1–15; 3:1–20; Haggai 1:1–15; 2:1–6, 10, 12–23; Zechariah 1:1–4

Bibliography: DJD 2

Date: uncertain

Significance: The Minor Prophets scroll is by far the most extensively preserved and most important manuscript found at Murabbaʿat. The text is almost identical to the MT. The kethib readings (i.e., the readings of the text as opposed to the readings in the margin of the MT) at Obadiah 11 and Habakkuk 3:14 are supported here.

Name: Mur(?) Gen

Content: Genesis 33:18–34:3

Bibliography: Puech (1980)

Date: uncertain

NAHAL HEVER

Name: Hev(?) Gen

Content: Genesis 35:6–10; 36:5–12

Bibliography:
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 2; Burchard (1966)

Date: no later than second century a.d.

Significance: The text is virtually identical to the MT.

Name: 5/6Hev Num

Content: Numbers 20:7–8

Bibliography: Yadin (1962)

Date: probably first century a.d.

Significance: The text of this very small fragment corresponds to the MT.

Name: 5/6Hev Ps

Content: Psalms 15:1–5; 16:1 (unconfirmed earlier identification: 7:14–31:22)

Bibliography: Yadin (1962)

Date: c. a.d. 50–100

Significance: The text and orthography corresponds to the MT, except the first phrase of the MT is absent here. In the MT there is no parallel to this phrase.

Name: 8HevgkXII

Content: Jonah 1:14–16; 2:1–7; 3:2–5, 7–10; 4:1–2, 5; Micah 1:1–8; 2:7–9; 3:4–6; 4:3–5, 6–10; 5:1–4 (=2–5), 5–6; Nahum 1:13–14; 2:5–10, 13–14; 3:3, 6–17; Habakkuk 1:5–11, 14–17; 2:1–8, 13–20; 3:8–15; Zephaniah 1:1–6, 13–18; 2:9–10; 3:6–7; Zechariah 1:1–4, 12–15; 2:2–4, 6–12, 16–17 (=1:17–2:13); 3:1–2, 4–7; 8:19–21, 23; 9:1–5

Bibliography: DJD 8

Date: Opinions vary as to the dating of this manuscript. T. C. Skeat places it as early as the first century b.c. Others place it somewhere in the first century a.d. See DJD 8:19–26 for a full discussion of the work of the two scribes and the paleographic evidence for dating.

Significance: This Greek Minor Prophets scroll is one of the most significant finds among the Dead Sea Scrolls. On the basis of a careful study of the manuscript, Barthélemy (1963) concluded that we have here a Greek translation that was revised toward the MT along the lines seen in what is known as the kaige recension, named for the use of Greek kaige to represent the Hebrew direct object marker ʾet.

OTHER MANUSCRIPTS FOUND ELSEWHERE

Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, several other manuscripts dating from the first century a.d. or earlier had been found. For example, the Nash Papyrus, mentioned earlier, is a valuable resource for the paleographic dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Several manuscripts of the Old Greek translation of the Old Testament provide an important witness to this ancient translation prior to the emergence of what became the standard Greek text of the Old Testament used by the Christian church. These manuscripts are described here to complete the picture of available manuscript evidence, although their textual evidence is not considered in any comprehensive manner.

Name: Nash Papyrus

Content: Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 6:4–5

Bibliography: Albright, BASOR 115 (1949):10–19

Date: c. 150 b.c.

Significance: The text of the Ten Commandments in the Nash papyrus is similar to the LXX text of Exodus 20. The Nash papyrus also includes the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4–5 with the longer text of the LXX. The Nash Papyrus appears to be a biblical text designed for liturgical use. The combination of the Ten Commandments and the Shema was used in the Second Temple period (see Mishnah: Tamid 5:1, “they recited the Decalogue, the Shema, etc.”). An important text such as the Ten Commandments existed in a form similar to the Hebrew text underlying the LXX translation. Compare 4QDeut n.

Name: P. Ryl. Gk. 458 (= Rahlfs/Göttingen no. 957)

Content: Deuteronomy 23:24(26)–24:3; 25:1–3; 26:12, 17–19; 28:31–33

Bibliography: Roberts (1936), Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library.

Date: late second century b.c.

Name: Greek papyrus Fouad 266 (= Rahlfs/Göttingen nos. 942, 848, and 847)

Content: 942: Genesis 3:10–12; 4:5–7, 23; 7:17–20; 37:34–36; 38:1, 10–12. 848: portions of Deuteronomy 17–33. 847: portions of Deuteronomy 10, 11, 31–33.

Place of Discovery: Cairo

Bibliography: Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy (Rudolf Habelt: 1980).

Date: c. 100 b.c.

Significance: The divine name is written in paleo-Hebrew letters.

Name: Silver Amulets

Content: Numbers 6:24–26

Place of Discovery: Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem (1979)

Bibliography: Ada Yardeni, “Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem.” Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991):176–185. A detailed description, with plates and transcriptions, is given in an article written in modern Hebrew by Gabriel Barkay, “The Priestly Blessing on the Ketef Hinnom Plaques” (Cathedra 52 [1989]:37–76).

Date: late seventh or early sixth century b.c.

Significance: These tiny amulets on thin silver plaques contain the earliest known text of the Old Testament. They have been quite difficult to decipher, but definitely contain the text of the priestly blessing found in Numbers 6:24–26, “The Lord bless you and keep you … and give you peace.” The extant portion of the Hebrew text of plaque 1 is identical to the MT. In plaque 2 there is an omission of a portion of the MT.

THE SHAPIRA MANUSCRIPT

In 1883, Moshe W. Shapira, an antiquities dealer from Jerusalem and Jewish convert to Christianity, offered to sell to the British Museum fifteen leather fragments containing portions of the book of Deuteronomy, including the Decalogue. The academic community of the day was initially quite interested in the document but ultimately ruled it a forgery, probably based in part on Shapira’s tarnished reputation as an antiquities dealer. Distraught, Shapira committed suicide in 1884. The manuscript vanished and the entire Shapira matter was quickly forgotten until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the mid-1950s Menahem Mansoor reopened the question and suggested that the case for authenticity be reexamined (1959). John M. Allegro, one of the “official” Dead Sea Scroll editors, wrote a popular account of the Shapira affair, calling for a reexamination of its authenticity (1965). Despite these calls for reconsideration, there has been little further interest shown in Shapira’s Deuteronomy.

On what basis did Mansoor and Allegro believe that the manuscript may not be a forgery? The rejection of authenticity was based on several arguments that no longer seem convincing in light of what we now know about paleography, scribal habits, and textual traditions. Since the manuscript is now lost, we can only examine the copy made by C. D. Ginsburg. At the time, the script was considered to be a forgery based on the writing style of the Moabite stone. We now know that numerous manuscripts at Qumran were written by imitating an archaic Hebrew style. The handwriting of Ginsberg’s copy of the Shapira document is by no means identical to Qumran paleo-Hebrew, but it does show that the general style was used in some documents over a long period of time. The Shapira manuscript was written in short columns of about eight lines on narrow leather strips, a characteristic thought by Shapira’s critics to demonstrate it as being not authentic. The biblical text itself differed editorially from the Masoretic Text, a phenomenon thought to be unlikely, especially for a text that included the Decalogue. Yet several Qumran manuscripts are written in short columns, including 4QDeut n, which is a harmonistic text.

The question of the authenticity of the Shapira Deuteronomy can probably never be resolved, especially since the manuscript is now lost. Yet it remains an intriguing possibility that Shapira had indeed come into possession of an ancient scroll of Deuteronomy, perhaps even originally from the Dead Sea area.

chart of biblical manuscripts from the dead sea region

Contents of individual chapters are indicated by:

    l = entire chapter

     = part of a chapter

    ○ = one verse only

    ♦ = part of a chapter, but exact content not yet published

 


 

GENESIS


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 

3


 

4


 

5


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1Q

◑ ◑


 


 


 

◑◑◑


 


 


 


 


 

2Q


 


 


 



 


 


 



 


 

4Qa


 


 


 


 



♦ ♦

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦


♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

4Qb

◑◑ ◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qc


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




 

4Qd



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qe


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

♦ ♦ ♦

♦ ♦ ♦


4Qf


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


4Qg

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qh



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qj


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦


 

4Qk

◑◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qpaleol


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


4Qpaleom


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 

6Qpaleo


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

8Q


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Mas


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

(2)Mur


 


 


 


 


 


 

◑◑


 


 


 

Mur (?)


 


 


 


 


 


 

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

?Hev


 


 


 


 


 


 




 


 


 

EXODUS


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 

3


 

4


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1Q


 


 


 

◑ ◑◑



 


 


 

2Qa


◑ ◑

◑◑


 


◑ ◑



 

2Qb



 



◑◑




 

2Qc



 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qa

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qb



 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qc


 


 



 


 


 


 


 

4Qd


 


 



 


 


 


 


 

4Qe


 


 



 


 


 


 


 

4Qf


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


4Qg


 


 



 


 


 


 


 

4Qh


 



 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qj


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qk


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qpaleol

◑◑◑

◑◑◑

◑◑ ◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑ ◑

◑◑


 


4Qpaleom


 

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑

◑◑

4QDeut j


 


 

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

(2)Mur

◑◑



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

7QpapGr


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 

LEVITICUS


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

1Qpaleo


 


 


◑◑

◑◑◑


 

2Qpaleo


 


 



 


 


 

4Qa


 


 




 


4Qb

◑◑


 


 


 

◑◑◑◑


 

4Qc



 


 


 


 


 

4Qd


 


 

◑◑



 


 

6Qpaleo


 



 


 


 


 

11Q


 

◑◑


 


 


 


 

11Qpaleo



◑ ◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Masa



 


 


 


 


 

Masb


 

♦ ♦ ♦

♦ ♦


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qtg


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qgka


 


 


 


 


 


4Qgkb

◑◑◑◑



 


 


 


 


 

NUMBERS


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 

3


 


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6

1Qpaleo



 


 


 


 


 


 


 

2Qa

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

2Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 



 

2Qc


 



 


 


 


 


 


 

2Qd?


 


 


 



 


 


 


 

4Qa

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑



 


 


 


 


 

4Qb


 


 

◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

(2)Mur


 


 


 


 


 


 




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

5/6Hev


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qgk

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

DEUTERONOMY


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 

3


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4

1Qa

◑ ◑

◑◑

◑ ◑◑



 


 


 

1Qb



◑ ◑


◑ ◑◑

◑◑◑

◑◑◑

2Qa



 


 


 


 


 


 

2Qb


 


 


 



 


 


 

2Qc


 



 


 


 


 


 

4Qa


 


 


 


 



 


 

4Qb


 


 


 


 


 

◑◑

◑◑

4Qc

◑◑

◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑ ◑

◑◑


 

◑◑◑


4Qd

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qe


◑◑


 


 


 


 


 

4Qf


◑◑◑


 

◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑


 

4Qg


 



 


 

◑◑◑

◑ ◑


 

4Qh

◑◑


 


 



 


 

◑ ◑

4Qi


 


 


 


◑◑


 


 

4Qj


◑ ◑



 


 


 


4Qk



 


◑◑

◑◑



4Ql


 



 


 


 

◑◑

◑◑

4Qm

◑◑



 


 


 


 


 

4Qn




 


 


 


 


 

4Qo

◑◑


 


 


 


 

◑◑


 

4Qp


 



 


 


 


 


 

4Qq


 


 


 


 


 


 


4Qpaleor



◑◑ ◑◑



◑ ◑

◑◑◑

4Qpaleos


 


 


 


 


 



 

5Q


 

◑◑◑


 


 


 


 


 

6Qpap?


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qgk


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Mas


 


 


 


 


 


 

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

(1)Mur


 


◑◑ ◑


 


 


 


 


 

JOSHUA


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4

4Qa

♦ ♦♦ ♦

◑◑◑ ◑


 


 


 

4Qb

◑◑◑


 


 



 


 

JUDGES


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1

1Q


 



 


 


 

4Qa


 



 


 


 

4Qb


 


 


 




 

RUTH


 


 


 

1 2 3 4

2Qa

◑◑◑

2Qb


4Qa


4Qb



 

1 SAMUEL


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 

3


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2

1Q


 


 


 



 


 


 

4Qa

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑

◑◑ ◑◑


◑◑

◑◑◑ ◑


4Qb


 


 


 

◑ ◑◑

◑ ◑


 


 

4Qc


 


 


 


 



 


 


 

2 SAMUEL


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4

1Q


 


 


 


◑ ◑

4Qa

◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑ ◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑ ◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑

4Qb


 


 


 


 


 

4Qc


 


 

◑◑


 


 


 

1 KINGS


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2

4Q


 

◑◑


 


 


 

5Q



 


 


 


 

6Qpap



 



 



 

2 KINGS


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

4Q


 


 


 


 


 

5Q


 


 


 


 


 

6Qpap


◑◑◑◑


 


 


 


 

1 CHRONICLES


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

4Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

2 CHRONICLES


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 

3


 


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6

4Q


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 

EZRA


 


 


 

1


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

4Q




 

NEHEMIAH


 


 


 


 

1


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3

4Q


 


 


 


 

ESTHER


 


 


 

1


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

No portion of Esther found among the Dead Sea Scrolls


 

JOB


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 

3


 

4


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2

2Q


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 

4Qa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 

4Qb


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qpaleoc


 


 

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qtg

◑◑◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qtg


 


 


 

◑◑◑◑

◑◑ ◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑◑◑◑

◑◑


 

PSALMS / Book I


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1


 

2


 

3


 

4


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1Qa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1Qc


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

2Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

3Q



 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qa




 


 



 

◑ ◑ ◑

◑ ◑

4Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qc


 


 


 

◑ ◑


 

◑◑



4Qd


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qe


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qf


 


 


 


 



 


 


 

4Qg


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qh


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qj


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qk


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Ql


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qm


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qn


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qo


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qp


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qq


 


 


 


 


 


 

◑ ◑◑


 

4Qr


 


 


 


 


 



 


 

4Qs




 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qfrg1


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qfrg2


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qfrg3


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4QPs89


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

5Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

6Qpap


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

8Q


 


 


 

◑◑


 


 


 


 

11Qa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qc



◑◑◑

◑◑


 


 


 


 

11QcS+


 


 


 


 


 


 


◑◑◑◑

11Qd


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11QApa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Masa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Masb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

5/6Hev


 


 




 


 


 


 


 

PSALMS / Book II


 


 


 


 


 


 

4

5


 

6


 

7


 


 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

1Qa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

1Qc



 


 


 


 


 


 

2Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

3Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qa


 


◑◑



◑◑ ◑


4Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qc


 

◑ ◑◑

◑◑


 


 


 


 

4Qd


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qe


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qf


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qg


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qh


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qj


 

◑◑


 


 


 


 


 

4Qk


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Ql


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qm


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qn


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qo


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qp


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qq


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qr


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qs


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qfrg1



 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qfrg2


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qfrg3


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4QPs89


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

5Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

6Qpap


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

8Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qc



 


 


 


 


 


 

11QcS+


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qd



 


 



 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11QApa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Masa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Masb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

5/6Hev


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

PSALMS / Book III and Book IV


 


 


 


 

8


 

9


 

10


 


 

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

1Qa


 


 





 

1Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 

1Qc


 


 


 


 


 


 

2Q


 


 


 


 


 

◑◑

3Q


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qa


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qb


 


 


 

◑◑

○ ○ ◑◑

◑◑

4Qc


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qd


 


 


 


 


 


4Qe



◑ ◑◑


 


 

◑◑

4Qf


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qg


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qh


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qj


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qk


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Ql


 


 


 


 


 


4Qm


 


 


 

◑ ◑

◑◑


 

4Qn


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qo


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qp


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qq


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qr


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qs


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qfrg1


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qfrg2


 


 



 


 


 

4Qfrg3


 


 


 


 



 

4QPs89


 


 



 


 


 

5Q


 


 


 


 


 


 

6Qpap



 


 


 


 


 

8Q


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qa


 


 


 


 


 

◑◑ ◑◑

11Qb


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qc



 


 


 


 


 

11QcS+


 


 


 


 


 


 

11Qd




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

11QApa


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Masa


 

◑◑◑◑◑


 


 


 


 

Masb


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

5/6Hev


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Psalms 5


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

10

11

12


 

13


 

14


 

15


 

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 0

1Qa


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 

1Qb


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 

1Qc


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

2Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

3Q


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qa


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qb


 


◑ ◑


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qc


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qd


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

?

◑◑

4Qe





◑ ◑◑


 


 


 


 

4Qf

◑ ◑


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qg


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 

4Qh