The implications of thinking in terms of ‘original’ forms of the biblical texts, and ‘copy-
texts’ of the scriptures, were the topic of a paper by Eugene Ulrich.^13 Ulrich framed a
question about the state of the Hebrew scriptures in the period between 200 B.C.E. and
70 C.E. which, after careful consideration, was phrased thus: “What were the texts of the
Scriptures like near the end of the Second Temple period?”^14 In phrasing this question,
Ulrich decided to do away with such anachronistic and subjective terminology as ‘stan-
dard text’ and ‘Hebrew Bible.’ In doing so he asserted that the concern for a standard text
is a modern one, and that there is no evidence to suggest that the standardisation of the
text was a concern in the period in question.^15
There has been general recognition by scholars that textual criticism does not necessarily
require one text in particular to be judged as superior to all others. Certainly most modern
text-critics will not insist that alternative readings in the MT must always be preferred
over variant readings in other textual witnesses. Studies by scholars such as Clines, Co-
gan, Polak and Young emphasise the necessity to examine texts not in terms of ‘original’
(^13) E. Ulrich, "The Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” 67-87.
(^14) E. Ulrich, "The Qumran Biblical Scrolls," 84.
(^15) This view does not take into account the arguments put forward in Young "The Stabilization of the Bibli-
cal Text In the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?” DSD 9,
3 (2002) 365 n. 6, concerning the interpretation of the evidence from Masada. Rather, Ulrich’s comments
pertain to the biblical texts from Qumran, and do not extend to the evidence at Masada and other (non-
Qumran) sites in the Judean Desert. In "The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Later Stages in the
Composition of the Bible," "Sha'arei Talmon": Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East
Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (eds M. Fishbane and E. Tov; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 275 n.
26, Ulrich argued that “the Masada and Murabba‘at manuscripts positively document a proto-Masoretic
text tradition, but the assumption of an official, definitive rejection of other textual forms is an argumentum
e silentio.” In light of Young’s argument, we might revise the period under consideration in Ulrich’s paper
to cover from 200 B.C.E. to before 70 CE, i.e. the first half of the first century C.E.