three families, identified with the localities of Palestine, Egypt and Babylon.^33 The proc-
ess of stabilisation developed only after a long period of recensional activity, which saw
the three textual families further developed into various traditional forms. Likewise, the
recensional activity that led to the production of the Versions only occurred after a sig-
nificant period of non-recensional, ‘localising’ activity. That is, texts evidenced at Qum-
ran show signs of updating towards various ‘localised’ versions,^34 but give no indication
of recensional activity.^35 For Cross, different biblical texts broke away from particular
family archetypes at different times, with the process starting as early as the 6th-5th centu-
ries B.C.E., and continuing down to the third century B.C.E.^36 The resulting recensions of
localised archetypes are represented by the confused collection of traditions at Qumran.
Later, in the period between the Jewish Revolts, a consciously selective process was un-
dertaken to select texts of particular recensional backgrounds to form the textus receptus,
the copy-text of MT.^37
(^33) See the collection of previously published papers in F.M. Cross and S. Talmon, (^) Qumran and the History
of the Biblical Text (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975). Articles republished in that volume
are cited in this study in their original place of publication. 34
Cross gives as an example the Lucianic revision of an Egyptian-type text, revised in transmission to-
wards a Palestinian text-type, the Vorlage of which is reflected in the Samuel manuscripts from Qumran
cave 4. See F.M. Cross, "The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries," 88. 35
See F.M. Cross, "The History of the Biblical Text," 290, and esp. n. 30, where he acknowledges that the
date of a document from Qumran “tells us nothing of its textual character,” in stark contrast to the later
texts from Masada, Murabba‘at, Wadi Sdeir and Na 36 ḥal Hever.
37 See F.M. Cross, "The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries," 86-88.
For this outline of the developmental process see F.M. Cross, "The History of the Biblical Text," 291-92,
and also the comments in P. Skehan, "The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism," Volume du Con-
gres. Strasbourg (VTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1957) 148.