Discussion of Variants
Orthographic Variants
Although not represented in the preceding list of variants, the proportion of orthographic
variants to other types of variation in the sources is significant, comprising about 55% of
the total number of variants.^1316 By far the most common variations between the orthog-
raphy of the sources and that of the MT involve the use of matres lectionis to represent
the long and short ‘i’ and ‘o’ class vowels. Also relatively frequent is the writing of the
digraph )y to represent [ī]; the defective writing of some suffixes, such as the marker of
mpl nouns M-, and the marker of fpl nouns t-. In general it is fair to state that the majority
of Torah scrolls from Qumran reflect a plene orthography as compared to the generally
defective style of the MT, but this is by no means a universal rule that applies to all of the
sources uncovered along the western shore of the Dead Sea.^1317 By contrast the scrolls
from find-sites other than Qumran show a distinct alignment with the orthographic style
of the MT.
1316
The total number of variants in the Dead Sea Torah scrolls relative to the MT is 1,985. Of these 1,089
are orthographic variants. 1317
On the use of the terms ‘plene’ and ‘defective’ see the useful description in W. Weinberg, The History
of Hebrew Plene Spelling (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985) 3-7. Weinberg designates as
plene an orthographic style that employs matres lectionis more frequently than the MT, while the MT is
seen as a kind of benchmark for defective texts, though the MT itself is not as defective as the Hebrew in-
scriptions. This must remain an essentially relative definition, as Weinberg himself admits that plene never
means that every long vowel is rendered by a mater lectionis, nor does defective mean that no matres lec-
tionis are used at all. Indeed, certain scrolls, such as 11QpaleoLev, display a defective orthographic style
relative to the MT (see J. Cook, "Orthographic Peculiarities in the Dead Sea Biblical Scrolls," RevQ 14
[1989] 299-300). For a full discussion of the evidence see D.N. Freedman, "The Masoretic Text and the
Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography," Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds F.M. Cross
and S. Talmon; Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975) 196-211.