The Baron Award commemorates the great scholarship of the late Salo W. Baron in the twentieth century in the field of the history of the Jews as reflected in his magnum opus, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (2nd ed., 1952–1983). As a student, I read this work and was deeply impressed by the depth of his understanding. Later I turned to biblical studies, and therefore I have not opened his works for many years. I was pleasantly surprised to see that an active academia.edu account is being maintained posthumously in Professor Baron’s name. Today Professor Salo Wittmeyer Baron
1. Ancient Sources
As a historian, Salo W. Baron analyzed documents in a magisterial way, and based his conclusions on these documents. The written texts, as well as oral reports, spoken and recorded witnesses, serve as sources for modern analyses. Likewise, the study of ancient literatures is based on the analysis of documents, as in the case of the Hebrew Bible, where we are limited to written sources. The Bible as we know it today has many faces for religious Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Roman-Orthodox, Syriac Christians, Samaritans, Mormons, and the modern secular person.
That being the case, I want to examine what exactly are our sources for consulting the Hebrew Bible. In modern times, most people necessarily consult the Hebrew Bible in modern translations such as in English, French, German, and many additional languages. Now, all these modern translations are based on the Hebrew text, in fact on a single form of the Hebrew text, the so-called Masoretic Text created in the Middle Ages. As a result, from the Middle Ages onward, all Hebrew manuscripts and subsequently all Hebrew printed editions reflect that text, which is only partially ancient since it also reflects elements from the early Middle Ages. The ancient part is the main component of the text—the consonants, while the vowels and additional elements of the text were added in the early Middle Ages.2 The lack of ancient documentation for the Hebrew text prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not disturb the users of the Hebrew Bible and its students. They knew that ultimately the Bible reflects an ancient text as it was translated in antiquity into several languages.
If the Bible was not known in the Middle Ages in an ancient Hebrew text form, at least the ancient translations were transmitted to us in manuscripts from the fourth century of the Common Era onwards in the case of the Septuagint. Thus, the famous Sinaiticus manuscript of the Septuagint (LXX) from the British Museum that was copied in the fourth century CE3 shows not only that the Septuagint was ancient but also that the Hebrew Bible from which it was translated was ancient. This argument is not waterproof since the Septuagint (LXX) differs much from the Masoretic Text,4 but the Hebrew Masoretic Text was also quoted almost literally in the ancient Hebrew law codes, the Mishnah and Talmud.5 All these sources added confidence to the general dating of the Hebrew Bible as an ancient document, although until recently we did not have ancient Hebrew source texts in our hands. The oldest available texts were the medieval manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible from between the tenth and the fifteenth centuries of the Common Era. This date was pushed back a little when slightly earlier manuscripts were discovered in a storage room of a synagogue in Egypt, a so-called genizah, the Cairo Genizah.6 Through this treasure trove of manuscripts, we now have Hebrew manuscripts in our hands from between the sixth and the ninth centuries of the Common Era, all belonging to the same tradition of the Masoretic Text.
However, organized religious traditions do not feel the need for ancient documents in order to trust the Bible. Thus, the Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan traditions maintain a belief in the divine origin of the Hebrew text from ancient times. This belief implies that Moses himself received the Torah from the hands of God.7 Jewish tradition as embedded in the Talmud even holds on to the tradition that the Torah was written by Moses himself,8 except for the last eight verses of Deuteronomy. All the same, scholarly inquiry proceeds independently of religious beliefs and therefore scholars were looking for the ancient sources of the Hebrew Bible.
2. Dead Sea Scrolls
The situation of the manuscript evidence of the Bible changed drastically in 1947 with the discovery of fragments of the Hebrew Bible in caves in the Judean Desert near the Dead Sea. The discovery of these ancient manuscripts turned out to be the greatest archaeological discovery of the twentieth century. It so happened that a small community lived at a site called Qumran in an arid, desert-like environment that enabled the preservation of scrolls made of skins and papyrus over the course of two thousand years.9 In the beginning years after the discovery, when some scholars did not want to believe that 2,000-year-old scrolls had been discovered, it was thought that the Bedouin had stumbled upon medieval texts. However, after Professor Eleazar Sukenik from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem had identified the script of the scrolls as ancient (1948), the world started to believe that a real treasure had been found.
The story of the discovery is one of romance, mystery, and intrigue having taken place during a time of war between the just-born Jewish state and its Arab neighbours.10 The political situation was even more complex since the initial discovery had been made at the tail end of the British mandate in Jewish and Arab Palestine just prior to the War of Independence that followed immediately after the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel (May 18, 1948). According to the story, one year earlier, in the beginning of 1947, a Bedouin11 searched in a cave for his goat that had gone astray. In that cave, which subsequently became known as Cave 1, he found to his astonishment several broken jars, some complete jars, and several pieces of skins inscribed in a language that he was not able to read. I don’t even know whether he was able to read Arabic. Not knowing what to do with these pieces of skin, quite naturally his first and very practical thought was to make sandals from them. After a while, he had the good insight to contact an antiquity dealer in Jericho,12 and the remainder is history. Some of the fragments are very tiny but the large Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa, 8 meters) is almost complete.
We now know much about these finds. Among other things, we know that a community was living there at Qumran, and that this community decided to hide its written documents in various caves when they feared for their lives due to the nearing of the Roman armies around the year 68. Many hundreds of books13 have been written about these discoveries made between 1947 and 195614 and in the meantime all the ancient texts from the Judean Desert caves have been published.15 At the same time, we continue to improve our understanding of these texts that are sometimes very fragmentary. In recent decennia, various computer technologies and several technologies from the natural sciences have come to our aid.16
3. Documentation
Let us return to the issue of the documentation. Until 1947, scholars and the public at large were using the text of the Hebrew Bible based on manuscripts from the Middle Ages.17 This may sound incredible, but it is not so unusual because in the study of the classical writers written in Greek and in Latin, we also often base ourselves on medieval traditions, which as far as we can tell have turned out to be rather precise. It so happens that also the text of the Hebrew Bible as transmitted from antiquity to the Middle Ages in the form of the Masoretic Text turned out to be very precise, as I will explain in a while. But scholars prefer to base themselves on early documents, and the medieval texts are late. Of course, we did not know that we were waiting for the Dead Sea Scrolls. But we did need them for a better understanding of all aspects of the background of the Hebrew Bible because they are closer to the time when the books were written.
4. Limited Textual Variety Known before 1947
We already knew prior to the discovery of the scrolls that the text of the Bible as transmitted in the various ancient sources is represented by more than one tradition. Beyond the Masoretic tradition, which was accepted traditionally by the Jewish community, the Christian world adhered initially to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. That translation, named the Septuagint (LXX, “seventy”) because according to tradition the Torah was translated into Greek by seventy wise men, was of central importance for Christianity since the New Testament, written in Greek, used that translation for the version of the Hebrew Bible rather than the Hebrew version. That translation remained the holy text of the Christians until it was replaced gradually between the fifth and the ninth centuries of the Common Era by the Latin translation of Jerome named the Vulgate.18 Actually, the Septuagint (LXX) remains until today the sacred text of the Orthodox churches, while it is still one of the accepted texts in the Catholic world. This Greek translation is also held in great esteem among scholars because its underlying Hebrew text differs from the Masoretic Text in important details. It must have been based on ancient and respected Hebrew manuscripts, ones that were at least as respected and ancient as the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. This fact has been recognized since the seventeenth century. Also before the discovery of the scrolls, the Septuagint (LXX) was used actively in the scholarly investigation of most books of the Bible, especially in that branch that is named textual criticism. The description is a little complicated because, for the Protestants, the Masoretic Text carries more weight than the Septuagint (LXX), and in the seventeenth century they held heated theological discussions with the Catholics for whom the Septuagint (LXX)was more authoritative.19
Another source for the knowledge of the ancient text of the Bible and that likewise differed from the Masoretic Text and known in the western world from the seventeenth century onwards, was the so-called Samaritan Pentateuch, the Pentateuch of the Samaritan community.20 Once a large group in the land of Israel, the Samaritan community has shrunk during its tumultuous history, until only a few hundred Samaritans remain in our days. The Samaritan Pentateuch, covering only the five books of Moses, differed from the Masoretic Text in numerous large details as well as in many small details. This text did not sanctify Jerusalem as the holy city but Mount Gerizim near Schechem (Nablus) and that belief was written up in a special commandment, the Samaritan tenth commandment.21 The Samaritans practice the biblical customs and religion according to the exact word of the biblical law, without the intervention of rabbinic Judaism. They are presently living at their holy site of Gerizim in Shekhem (Nablus) in Palestine as well as in Holon in the State of Israel.
What scholars think of this Samaritan Pentateuch is another story. They often regard the Samaritan Pentateuch as a secondary source when compared with the Masoretic Text. Its secondary character is visible through its many readings that do away with difficulties in the earlier text and through its exegetical additions.22 Be that as it may, the textual sources of the Samaritan Pentateuch are medieval, the oldest fragment dating to the eleventh century. However, this text is generally believed to have derived from an ancient text penned down more than two thousand years ago, but we were waiting for the Dead Sea Scrolls for actual proof. In short, so-called pre-Samaritan scrolls from Qumran foreshadow the medieval text of the Samaritan Pentateuch.
In short, before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found we could divide the main Bible texts according to the various adherents of world religions. The Masoretic Text, now the major text of the Bible, was accepted in the Jewish and later in the Protestant tradition, the Septuagint was accepted in the Catholic tradition and in the various Orthodox churches, and the Samaritan Torah was accepted by the adherents of the small Samaritan community. In reality, the situation was a little more complex, as the Syriac churches accepted the Peshitta translation in the Syriac language, one of the Aramaic dialects, and there are several additional churches who adhere to their own texts, such as the Ethiopic and Armenian churches.
But one thing is clear: even before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, we were exposed to a picture of textual variety regarding the Hebrew Bible, and that variety was also reflected in the texts accepted by the various belief communities.23 Accordingly, the views on the sacred text of the Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan communities diverged, but they did not clash since they were organized in different societies. Within their organized religion, the Jews did not consult the text of the Catholics, the Septuagint, and neither did the Catholics consult the Jewish text, and no one consulted the Samaritan Pentateuch. Only scholars took all three texts into consideration. Whether Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant, scholars always turned to all the ancient texts. Thus, prior to 1947, scholars worked with a textual picture of the Bible that was based on a reality of three different texts of the Torah, the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and two different texts of the remaining books for which there was no Samaritan text.
5. Textual Variety at Qumran
With the new discoveries at Qumran, this situation was changed completely. Great parts of the Hebrew Bible were revealed in 1947. Many copies were found of some Scripture books, such Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Psalms, while only a few copies have been preserved of other Scripture books.24
The greatest surprise that was recognized after the discovery of the first scrolls was the multiplicity of biblical texts that were accepted by the ancient Jewish community of Qumran that lived in the desert near the Dead Sea. While the Jewish people have used only one text throughout its history from the first century of the Common Era until today, viz., the Masoretic Text, the reality that was unfolded in front of our eyes regarding the Qumran community was that many different sorts of texts were used by them in the last century before the Common Era and the first century of the Common Era.
I believe that this multiplicity of texts was imported to Qumran from outside the community; the members of that community brought with them different texts when they settled at the site.25 What do I mean when referring to textual variety? We find many small differences between the Qumran scrolls, and sometimes large ones, while the overall content of the Bible remains unchanged. It is the same Bible, that is, there are not two different books of Samuel or of Isaiah. At the same time, we see important developments and trends in copying the text of the Bible. Mind you, we are not talking about the earlier period of the composition of the biblical books, but rather the period of the copying of the manuscripts in the third, second, and first centuries before the Common Era and the first century of the Common Era as reflected in the scrolls found at Qumran.
Thus, we see linguistic differences between the texts because obviously the Hebrew and Aramaic languages developed over the course of decennia and centuries.26 Further, and most importantly, scribes took the liberty of inserting their exegesis in the text, explaining Holy Scripture, while changing and adding details in the content.27 In rare cases, they also omitted a detail. In one case, a long stretch of text was omitted in the large Isaiah Scroll from Cave 1, 1QIsaa, and subsequently added in the line and in the side margin.28 In this case, note the representation of the name of the Lord,
Returning to the insertion of changes in Bible manuscripts, you might say that a scribe is not supposed to insert changes in a sacred text. That is true, but we don’t know when a reverential approach of not changing the transmitted Scripture text was developed.29 Alongside the approach of conservative scribes who did not change the transmitted text, there were always scribes who occasionally inserted their own views into the text. When investigating the different types of scribes, we realize that we can sometimes point to a certain group that practiced a precise or traditional approach to the copying of the Scripture text and likewise to other groups that practiced a free approach. Of course, scribes of all types considered the Scripture text sacred, but they expressed their approach towards the sacred status of the text in different ways. As a result of all these aspects, the scrolls differ among each other, and by implication they also differ from the text that we now name the Masoretic Text. The MT is the text we have in our hands in Hebrew or in translation and is the text you know best. It was one of the texts among those found in the Judean Desert that are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls; not the only text, not even the majority text, but just one of the texts. The differences between the various texts are sometimes large, for example in Samuel and Jeremiah, and sometimes small.
When the Judean Desert Scrolls provided the first textual evidence from the third pre-Christian century, lifting the veil from the Dark Ages, we see a multitude of textual forms as described above. It is hard to imagine that this textual variety was created only in the third century, and we assume that it existed already at least in the preceding century. It was imported into Qumran, because the differences between readings such as the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch found there are identical to readings of these texts known from outside Qumran, for example, from the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Masoretic Text.
We should also remember that the description of the textual situation in ancient Israel as pluralistic does not do justice to the full picture. After all, there were also clusters of textual unity within the Qumran corpus, such as a group of texts reflecting the Masoretic Text, a group of texts foreshadowing the Samaritan Pentateuch, and a group of texts that we would call harmonizing. Thus, within the pluralistic picture there were also clusters of unity. But the most important lesson we should learn from this description is that the Bible has many faces.
6. Practical Implications
If I say that the Bible had many faces in antiquity, is that true also today? I cannot speak like a theologian; I am an exegete and a textual critic. Despite the many internal differences, the Bible, overall, was the same in antiquity and remains so today. I am not belittling the internal differences, but the message of the Bible is the same. Of course, scholars explain these differences today. The Septuagint, and therefore also the Catholic Bible, includes the beautiful Psalm 151 of the young David that is not contained in the Masoretic Text of the Jewish Bible. That psalm was also included in one of the Qumran scrolls, 11QPsalmsa.30 Those who study the development of the collection of the biblical writings, the canon, are interested in the different versions of this psalm. The short text of Jeremiah, represented by the Qumran scroll 4QJerd and also by the Septuagint, presents short names where the Masoretic Text has long ones. For example, it has “Nebuzaradan” (Jer 43:6) where Masoretic Text has “Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards,” and other similar examples.31 There are also theological differences between these two versions. In chapter 10, the prophet mocks the heathen gods, the idols, since they are made of wood and cannot talk or walk. However, the Masoretic Text adds a long praise for the God of Israel who is a real God.32
While the general message of the Bible is the same, scholars focus on the textual differences such as just mentioned. Textual critics delve into the details, trying to explain their background. Usually they also express a view on details that seem to them preferable to others and they even risk a view on the so-called original text of the Bible. I might add that I have been thinking for a long time about this so-called original text;33 I keep changing my mind, and I will probably never have a clear answer. But I do have a view on this topic, namely that we should keep in mind that the Hebrew Bible was known in antiquity in various forms and that these forms are still visible in the text forms that have been accepted in the various religious communities.
Bibliography
Brooke, George J., and Charlotte Hempel. T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: T&T Clark, 2019.
Cross, Frank M. The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies. London: Duckworth, 1958.
Cross, Frank M. The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3rd edition, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Crawford, Sidnie White. “The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs: Reflections on the Differences (?) between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 9 (2020): 320–333.
De Troyer, Kristin, and David R. Herbison. “Where Septuagint and Qumran Meet: The Septuagint and Qumran Texts of Isa 40:7–8.” Textus 29 (2020): 156–167.
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan), volumes 1–40. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955–2009.
Fields, Weston F. The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Full History: Volume One, 1947–1960. Leiden: Brill: 2009.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995.
Graves, Michael. “1.2 Latin Texts.” In Textual History of the Bible, Vol. 3 A Companion to Textual Criticism, Vol. 3A, The History of Research of Textual Criticism, edited by Russell E. Fuller and Armin Lange, 231–291. Leiden: Brill, 2022.
Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. 1st edition, London: Oxford University Press, 1947. 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1959.
Kartveit, M. The Origin of the Samaritans. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Keil, Carl F. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testaments. 6th edition, Frankfurt/Main: Heyder & Zimmer, 1859.
Kratz, Reinhard G. Qumran: Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer und die Entstehung des biblischen Judentums. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2022.
Kutscher, Edward Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isa). Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Lebram, J.-C. “Ein Streit um die hebräische Bibel und die Septuaginta.” In Leiden University in the Seventeenth Century, edited by Theodoor H. Lunsingh Scheurleer and Guillaume H. M. Posthumus Meyjes, 21–63. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
McKendrick, Scot, et al., eds. Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript. London: The British Library, 2015.
Ofer, Yosef. The Masora on Scripture and Its Methods. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019.
Reymond, Eric D. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.
Sanders, J. A. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD IV. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965.
Teeter, David A. Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Tov, Emanuel. “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls.” Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982): 11–27.
Tov, Emanuel. “Approaches of Scribes to the Biblical Text in Ancient Israel.” In The Scribe in the Biblical World: A Bridge Between Scripts, Languages and Cultures, edited by Esther Eshel and Michael Langlois, 3–21. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2023.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Background and Origin of the Qumran Corpus of Scripture Texts.” In Sacred Texts and Disparate Interpretations: Qumran Manuscripts Seventy Years Later: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 24–26 October 2017, edited by Henryk Drawnel, 50–65. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Tov, Emanuel. “Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Scribal Practice, Text and Canon in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essays in Memory of Peter W. Flint, edited by John J. Collins and Ananda Geyser-Fouché, 225–246. Leiden: Brill, 2019.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Sciences and the Reconstruction of the Ancient Scrolls: Possibilities and Impossibilities.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, edited by Armin Lange et al., 3–25. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Tenth Commandment of the Samaritans.” In Tempel, Lehrhaus, Synagoge: Orte jüdischen Lernens und Lebens. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kraus, edited by Christian A. Eberhart, Martin. Karrer, Siegfried Kreuzer, and Martin Meiser, 141–157. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2020.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, revised and expanded fourth edition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2022.
VanderKam, James C., and Perter W. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2013.
Van der Woude, Adam S. “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament.” In Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude, edited by Jan N. Brenner and Florentino García Martínez, 151–169. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992.
Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, translated and edited by E. J. Revell. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980.
https://columbia.academia.edu/SaloWittmayerBaron, last accessed October 25, 2024.
See I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, trans. and ed. E. J. Revell, (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980); Y. Ofer, The Masora on Scripture and Its Methods (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019); E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (rev., exp., 4th ed., Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2022), 35–85.
See Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript, ed. S. McKendrick et al. (London: The British Library, 2015).
Tov, Textual Criticism, 215–61.
This is a fact, although scholars also collect the occasional deviations from MT in the rabbinic literature. See, for example, the second apparatus in the critical edition of the Hebrew University Bible Project of Isaiah: M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995).
P. E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (London: Oxford University Press, 1947; 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959).
Within the Jewish context, one of the “Thirteen Fundamental Principles” of the Jewish faith of Maimonides (1138–1204) is that Moses received the Torah from God: Maimonides, Commentary to Tractate Sanhedrin of the Mishnah, 10.1.
B. b. Batra 14b. The last verses of Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses as they relate about his death.
See the introductions by F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies (London: Duckworth, 1958); The Ancient Library of Qumran (3rd ed., Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); J. C. VanderKam and P. W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2013); G. J. Brooke and C. Hempel, T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T&T Clark, 2019); R. G. Kratz, Qumran: Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer und die Entstehung des biblischen Judentums (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2022).
W. F. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A Full History: Volume One, 1947–1960 (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
Muhammad Ahmed al-Hamed (born 1931), better known by his nickname Muhammed edh-Dhib (“Muhammad the Wolf”), from the Ta’amireh clans residing in Bethlehem.
Khalil Iskandar Shahin, also known as Kando.
For the most recent bibliography, see the website of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Hebrew University: http://orion.huji.ac.il/resources/bib/orionBibliography.shtml, last accessed October 17, 2023.
The last cave to be discovered was Cave 11, containing a wealth of inscribed material.
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan), vols. 1–40 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955–2009) as well as several electronic editions.
E. Tov, “The Sciences and the Reconstruction of the Ancient Scrolls: Possibilities and Impossibilities,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. A. Lange et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 3–25.
That is, in the editions of the Hebrew Bible, the medieval texts continue to play a key role.
M. Graves, “1.2 Latin Texts,” in The History of Research of Textual Criticism, vol. 3A of Textual History of the Bible: A Companion to Textual Criticism, ed. R. E. Fuller and A. Lange (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 231–91.
See the instructive study by J.-C. Lebram, “Ein Streit um die hebräische Bibel und die Septuaginta,” in Leiden University in the Seventeenth Century, ed. T. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer and G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 21–63, as well as the summary of C. F. Keil, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testaments (6th ed., Frankfurt/Main: Heyder & Zimmer, 1859), 605–8.
M. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Tov, Textual Criticism, 171–203.
E. Tov, “The Tenth Commandment of the Samaritans,” in Tempel, Lehrhaus, Synagoge. Orte jüdischen Lernens und Lebens. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kraus, ed. C. Eberhart et al. (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2020), 141–57.
S. White Crawford, “The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs: Reflections on the Differences (?) between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism,” HBAI 9 (2020): 320–33.
E. Tov, “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls,” HUCA 53 (1982): 11–27; A. S. van der Woude, “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament,” in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude, ed. J. N. Brenner and F. García Martínez (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992), 151–69; D. A. Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 210–39.
E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 109–70.
E. Tov, “The Background and Origin of the Qumran Corpus of Scripture Texts,” in Sacred Texts and Disparate Interpretations: Qumran Manuscripts Seventy Years Later: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 24–26 October 2017, ed. H. Drawnel (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 50–65.
E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974); E. D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2014).
E. Tov, “Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Scribal Practice, Text and Canon in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Essays in Memory of Peter W. Flint, ed. J. J. Collins and A. Geyser-Fouché (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 225–46.
1QIsaa col. XXXIII 7 (Isa 40:7–8). See K. De Troyer and D. R. Herbison, “Where Septuagint and Qumran Meet: The Septuagint and Qumran Texts of Isa 40:7–8,” Textus 29 (2020): 156–67.
E. Tov, “Approaches of Scribes to the Biblical Text in Ancient Israel,” in The Scribe in the Biblical World, A Bridge Between Scripts, Languages and Cultures, ed. E. Eshel and M. Langlois (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2023), 3–21.
J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa), DID IV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 49–64.
Tov, Textual Criticism, 234–36.
Ibid., 236.
Ibid., 338–48.