prepositional phrase with the subject or has omitted the prepositional phrase.25 The fragmentary nature of this line prohibits a more precise description of this variant.
orthography of 2Q3 as written in QSP,28 while Maurice Baillet described the text as full (i.e., more plene) while departing from the MT in a few details of morphology.29 For example, 2Q3 employs the following long forms: חכמע, לוכ, השומ, תויאמ,30 and יכונא.30F31
2Q3 has been described by many scholars as a non-biblical text because of fragment 8, which appears to transition from Exodus 19:9 to Exodus 34:10 and because of the divine name written in paleo-Hebrew.32 Tov argues, more specifically, that 2Q3 may be an example of a rewritten Bible and questions Baillet’s identification of the first line of fragment 8 as the remains of Exodus 19:9.33 Tov argues, “It is more likely that this fragment represents a non-biblical addition before Exodus 34:10 similar to the additions in 4QRP.”34 According to Tov, the contents of a rewritten Bible text are often close to a biblical text, but the scribes of these texts did not intend to write a biblical text.35 These
28 Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 332.
29 Baillet, “Grotte 2: Exode (ii),” 53.
30 The form תויאמ substitutes for תוֹא ֵמ at least 9 times in the DSS. It also occurs as the kethiv in 2 Kgs 11:4, 9, and 10. For a discussion of this form, see Ibid.
31 This word is poorly preserved. However, if one were to accept this reading, the form יכונא for MT’s יִנֲא would be quite unusual since, according to Reymond, [Qumran] biblical manuscripts tend to follow the biblical text. In fact, Reymond comments that the usual form of the first personal pronoun in [Qumran] biblical manuscripts is ינא, not יכונא or יכנא. Eric D Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 155.
32 See Baillet’s observations about the nature of 2Q3 in Baillet, “Grotte 2: Exode (ii),” 53. Tov makes similar comments in Tov, “4QReworked Pentateuch,” 23, esp. 23n11. Brooke makes the same suggestion in George J. Brooke, “Torah in the Qumran Scrolls,” in Bibel in jüdischer und Christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Johann Maier et al., Athenäums Monografien Theologie 88 (Frankfurt am Main: A. Hain, 1993), 102.
33 See Emanuel Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 16, no. 4 (December 1995): 584.
34 See Tov, “4QReworked Pentateuch,” 23, esp. 23n11.
35 Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 583. Tov’s view of the 4QRP has hence changed, and this view may have since changed. See Tov, “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?).”
texts are characterized by frequent exegetical omissions, additions, and transpositions.36 Contrary to Tov, Hartmut Stegemann37 and George Brooke38 identify 2Q3 as an excerpted text, not a rewritten Bible. Moreover, Maurice Baillet identified 2Q3 as either a biblical manuscript or as an anthology.39 A more precise identification of 2Q3 as either a
rewritten Bible, excerpted text, or abbreviated text is likely impossible.40 The text is too fragmentary.41
The textual tradition of 2Q3 has been further described by Tov and Lange. Tov hesitantly identifies 2Q3 as non-aligned,42 while Lange withholds judgment about the nature of 2Q3 since 2Q3 exists in a highly-damaged state.43 Excluding what appears to be a different sequence of text in fragment 8 from the discussion,44 it is argued here that 2Q3
36 Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 583.
37 Hartmut Stegemann, “Weitere Stücke von 4 Q P Psalm 37, von 4 Q Patriarchal Blessings Und Hinweis Auf Eine Unedierte Handschrift Aus Höhle 4 Q,” Revue de Qumran 6, no. 2 (September 1967): 220. Tov mentions that the rewritten Bible category was well known when Stegemann wrote his article. Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 584.
38 Brooke, “Torah in the Qumran Scrolls,” 102.
39 Baillet, “Grotte 2: Exode (ii),” 53.
40 See Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 586. Some characteristics of an excerpted text listed by Tov include the juxtaposition of different biblical texts, either from different books or from the same book and smaller dimensions. Tov further argues that the main criterion to identifying an excerpted text is often the limited scope of content. Brent Strawn identifies five possible characteristics to help identify excerpted texts in Brent Strawn, “Excerpted Manuscripts at Qumran: Their Significance for the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible and the Socio-Religious History of the Qumran Community and Its Literature,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins, ed. James H Charlesworth, vol. 2 (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 110-22.
These characteristics are the juxtaposition of different biblical texts, smaller dimensions, correspondence in biblical passages among excerpted passages, shared textual characteristics, and typically written in QSP (Qumran Scribal Practice).
41 See Tov’s cautions approach to identifying 2Q3 as a rewritten Bible text in Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 584.
42 Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 332.
43 Lange, “Textual Plurality,” 55.
44 Tov prescribes this rule in Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 599.
agrees with the MT in most readings while disagreeing in only minor details. Thus, it can be reasonably grouped within the Masoretic tradition.
Description and Categorization of Variants
Baillet proposes that 2Q3 deviates from the MT on three occasions by means of additions. However, the first two proposed variants will not be included in the statistics because they depend on insufficient manuscript evidence. The third proposed variant of Baillet is partially accepted here and is included in the statistics.
The first addition proposed by Baillet occurs at F4:L5 (Exod 22:2). Baillet proposes that 2Q3 reads ]םל[של ול ןיא]5 [םא םלשי םלש “[he shall surely repay. If there does not exist the ability for him to re]pay” whereas MT reads וֹל ןי ֵא־ם ִא םֵלּ ַשְׁי םֵלּ ַשׁ “he shall surely repay. If there does not exist to him.” The proposed addition would clarify what is omitted in the MT: namely, the concept of restitution. This would be a category 2 variant, but several factors make this reading uncertain. First, all that is preserved of line 5 is the very top upper stroke of a letter and two upward strokes of the following letter preceding at a forty-five-degree angle deriving from a horizontal stroke connecting them. The first letter could be the remnant of a lamed since this is the only letter to extend that far above the line.45 However, see 2Q2 fragment 1, line 2. Here, a vav corrected above the line:
םתוא is preserved. The superscripted vav extends above the line and complicates Baillet’s proposal. If all that was left of fragment 1 of 2Q2 was the upper portion of line 2, then a superscripted vav would give the appearance of a lamed. Thus, Baillet’s reconstruction is uncertain. The following letter is even more enigmatic since no preserved letter matches
45 The fourth line from the bottom on fragment 8 preserves an indisputable ל. See The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, “Plate 739 B-284856,” accessed November 23, 2016,
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-284856.
this letter’s remains.46 Thus, based only on manuscript evidence, the lamed is possible, but the proposed final mem is uncertain.
Second, Baillet’s proposed reading is further complicated by the fact that the root םלש occurs twice in the MT of Exodus 22:2 near where Baillet reconstructs the variant reading םלש so that the remnant of the םל might be the remnant of the reading of the MT.
Baillet argues that this is unlikely because of the size of the lacuna,46F47 but reconstructions based on spatial considerations are highly tentative, especially in a fragmentary text like 2Q3.47F48 Therefore, this variant will not be counted in the following discussion and statistics.
46 Baillet reads this letter as a final mem and cites the presumed final mem of fragment 8, line 1 as evidence. Baillet, “Grotte 2: Exode (ii),” 54. However, the upward strokes of this final mem are different than the one in fragment 4, line 5. See The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, “Plate 739 B- 284856.” The fragment in question is the first fragment in the third row.
47 Baillet, “Grotte 2: Exode (ii),” 54.
48 Although Baillet’s reasoning may appear plausible, several factors weaken his reasoning.
First, 2Q3 is highly fragmentary. No line is fully preserved, and no line fully preserves letters from more than one spot of a line. The most fully preserved line consists of only eleven letter spaces (F8:L1), while one line only preserves one partially preserved letter (F6:L6). This fact makes reconstruction based on spatial considerations highly tentative especially since the number of letter spaces per line fluctuates within a given text. Second, several situations can cause a scribe to skip space on the leather and thus, less content will occur on a line than expected. A scribe may leave portions of a line blank to avoid writing over scar tissue. This is the case twice in 11Q1 (Col 3:6 [Lev 24:11a]). See David Noel Freedman and Kenneth A.
Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 4.
See also 11Q5, which contains at least fourteen instances where the scribe avoided writing on the skin probably due to poor tanning procedures or scar tissue. See James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran̂
Cave 11 (11QPsa), vol. 4, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 14. Furthermore, erasures would cause a scribe to skip space. This happens at 11Q1 Col 3:3. Here, the scribe has written תא twice and then erases the second occurrence. See Freedman and Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 43. See also 11Q1 Col 6:9 (Lev 27:19a) for another example of the scribe of 11Q1 erasing text.
Freedman and Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 49. In these situations, less content is written than would be expected. The opposite can be true too; namely, a large amount of text can be written in a small space. For example, scribes, at times, add text above the line, crowd texts into margins, or even vertically up the page. Moreover, not all lines of a column contain equal number of letter spaces. For example, Julia Duncan reasons that fragments 1-3 of 4Q40 (4QDeutm) contained lines of 58 to 67 letter-spaces per line except line 7, which she reasons may have only contained 46-53 letter spaces. See Julie A. Duncan,
“4QDeutb,” in Qumran Cave 4: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross, vol. 9, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 114-15. See also 4Q98g where several letters have been cramped together to fit the available space of the first line. See Patrick W.
Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Peter W. Flint, “Psalms: 4QPsx,” in Qumran Cave 4. XI, Psalms to Chronicles, vol. 11, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 163.
The second proposed addition occurs at F7:L1 (Exod 31:16). Baillet proposes that 2Q3 reads הו]היל ת ֯ב[שה תא לארשי ינב ורמשו] “[The sons of Israel shall keep the Sab]bath to the Lord” whereas the MT reads ת ָבּ ַשַּׁה־ת ֶא ל ֵא ָר ְשִׂי־יֵנ ְב וּר ְמ ָשׁ ְו “The sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath.” Baillet’s proposal is not certain for two reasons. First, what is left of the lamed is faint, but possible. Nonetheless, Baillet’s proposed variant is weakened since the next word of the MT begins with a lamed preposition: תוֹשֲׂﬠַל. Second, there is not enough of the paleo-Hebrew to substantiate the reading הוהי.48F49 Therefore, both of these proposed variants depend on insufficient manuscript evidence.