Hever).^41 These scrolls are identified not only by their particular textual character, but
also by their large format, high number of lines per column, layout, and limited instances
of scribal interventions.^42 In other areas texts that diverged from the temple affiliated text
predominated, though texts that were aligned with the temple text were not unknown.
These diverse text-types are characterised by those uncovered at Qumran.^43
The main point of difference for Tov’s conceptualisation of the formation of fixed textual
traditions is that, for Tov, the difference between textual traditions is not connected with
geographical or chronological distinctions, but rather stems from sociological distinc-
tions. Texts like those uncovered at Masada had a social context that was aligned with the
text affiliated with the temple in Jerusalem, whereas texts like those uncovered at Qum-
ran had a different social context that was not as closely connected to the temple – though
a small number of the Qumran scrolls certainly may be of that type. The point is that texts
from Qumran do not necessarily reflect the temple social context but texts from Masada
necessarily do.
(^41) See E. Tov, "The Biblical Text in Ancient Synagogues," 190.
(^42) See E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Lei-
den: Brill, 2004) 91-92. 43
See E. Tov, "The Biblical Text in Ancient Synagogues," 191-92.