On the one hand, D. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), and K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), have used comparative data to shed light on the scribal apparatus of pre-exilic Israel and Judah as well as post-exilic Judea; on the other hand, E. Tov provides a window into Second Temple scribal practice through his comprehensive treatment of the evidence of the Qumran scrolls, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (stdj 54; Leiden: Brill, 2009).

On the one hand, D. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), and K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), have used comparative data to shed light on the scribal apparatus of pre-exilic Israel and Judah as well as post-exilic Judea; on the other hand, E. Tov provides a window into Second Temple scribal practice through his comprehensive treatment of the evidence of the Qumran scrolls, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (stdj 54; Leiden: Brill, 2009).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215-40, and Sidnie White Crawford, “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al.; bzaw 419; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 123-36; J. Ben-Dov, “Early Texts of the Torah: Revisiting the Greek Scholarly Context,” jaj 4 (2013): 210-34; and M. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), respectively.

See E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215-40, and Sidnie White Crawford, “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in Changes in Scripture (ed. H. von Weissenberg et al.; bzaw 419; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 123-36; J. Ben-Dov, “Early Texts of the Torah: Revisiting the Greek Scholarly Context,” jaj 4 (2013): 210-34; and M. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), respectively.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

M. Segal, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Materia Giudaica 12 (2007): 5-20; Zahn, Rethinking, 147-48; Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 213.

M. Segal, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Materia Giudaica 12 (2007): 5-20; Zahn, Rethinking, 147-48; Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 213.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See for example Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 220, 224; Zahn, Rethinking, 176; Kartveit, Origin, 276, 280; E. Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” dsd 5 (1998): 334-54, at 351; J. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod^m and the Samaritan Tradition (hss 30; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), 311.

See for example Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 220, 224; Zahn, Rethinking, 176; Kartveit, Origin, 276, 280; E. Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” dsd 5 (1998): 334-54, at 351; J. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod^m and the Samaritan Tradition (hss 30; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), 311.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions,” 340; A. Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery (ed. L. H. Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 30-39, at 31; Segal, “Text of the Hebrew Bible,” 16; Kartveit, Origins, 275-76; Zahn, Rethinking, 147; Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221.

See Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions,” 340; A. Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery (ed. L. H. Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 30-39, at 31; Segal, “Text of the Hebrew Bible,” 16; Kartveit, Origins, 275-76; Zahn, Rethinking, 147; Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

More details are presented by Zahn, Rethinking, 159-60.

More details are presented by Zahn, Rethinking, 159-60.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Segal, “Text of the Hebrew Bible,” 16-17.

Segal, “Text of the Hebrew Bible,” 16-17.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

D. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 260. See also Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects,” 32.

D. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 260. See also Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects,” 32.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Carr, Formation, 103; contra Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects,” 33, and B. Sommer, “Translation as Commentary: The Case of the Septuagint to Exodus 32-33,” Textus 20 (2000): 43-60, at 46.

Carr, Formation, 103; contra Rofé, “Historico-Literary Aspects,” 33, and B. Sommer, “Translation as Commentary: The Case of the Septuagint to Exodus 32-33,” Textus 20 (2000): 43-60, at 46.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Zahn, Rethinking, 25-74.

See Zahn, Rethinking, 25-74.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 39.

Eshel and Eshel, “Dating,” 234-35. Note that the creation rationale is inserted in different places in Vaticanus and 4QDeutn.

Eshel and Eshel, “Dating,” 234-35. Note that the creation rationale is inserted in different places in Vaticanus and 4QDeutⁿ.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See also Crawford, “Pentateuch as Found,” 133.

See also Crawford, “Pentateuch as Found,” 133.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 194-212.

Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 194-212.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For this line of thinking, see Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 208.

For this line of thinking, see Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 208.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 184.

Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 184.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

On the terminology, see Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 14-17.

On the terminology, see Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 14-17.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 188-89; see also Knoppers, “Parallel Torahs and Inner-Scriptural Interpretation,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz; fat 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 507-31, at 525-30.

Crawford, “Pentateuch as Found,” 131.

Crawford, “Pentateuch as Found,” 131.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Kartveit, Origin, 299.

Kartveit, Origin, 299.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For a description, see A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, Vol. 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 62. This point is also noted by Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221 n. 42.

For a description, see A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, Vol. 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 62. This point is also noted by Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221 n. 42.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 212; for earlier periods see D. A. Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period (fat 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 210-18.

Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 212; for earlier periods see D. A. Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period (fat 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 210-18.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221. Note Ben-Dov takes account of the manuscript evidence that not all changes happened at the same time by describing this as an “initial wave” (p. 220) that was later expanded upon.

Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 221. Note Ben-Dov takes account of the manuscript evidence that not all changes happened at the same time by describing this as an “initial wave” (p. 220) that was later expanded upon.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 224.

Ibid., 226.

M. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), esp. 9-12, 26-30, 38-74.

M. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), esp. 9-12, 26-30, 38-74.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 226.

Ben-Dov, “Early Texts,” 226.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

J. H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 81-103; H. J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (bzaw 221; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 20-56; Carr, Formation, 40-48, 90-91. Note especially Tertel’s statement (pp. 54-55) that “increasing parallelism and repetition . . . dominates the literary development of all epics investigated above” (i.e., Anzu, Atrahasis, Etana, and Gilgamesh).

J. H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 81-103; H. J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (bzaw 221; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 20-56; Carr, Formation, 40-48, 90-91. Note especially Tertel’s statement (pp. 54-55) that “increasing parallelism and repetition . . . dominates the literary development of all epics investigated above” (i.e., Anzu, Atrahasis, Etana, and Gilgamesh).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Kugel, Traditions, 4-14; in more detail, see the chapter by Kugel “Early Interpretation: The Common Background of Late Forms of Biblical Exegesis,” in J. Kugel and R. A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. W. Meeks; lec 3; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 9-106, esp. 27-39.

See Kugel, Traditions, 4-14; in more detail, see the chapter by Kugel “Early Interpretation: The Common Background of Late Forms of Biblical Exegesis,” in J. Kugel and R. A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. W. Meeks; lec 3; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 9-106, esp. 27-39.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation