tially less crisp if we did not nominate a Haupttext to provide a textual ‘yard-stick’
against which to compare such fragmentary data. It seems fair to say that, were we to ap-
proach the evidence without prior knowledge of the recensions that eventually emerged,
we would be absolutely unable to predict the shape of any of the recensions based on
these disparate fragments. In this sense, descriptions of variations in terms of ‘additions,’
‘omissions,’ and the like, are really projections that we ourselves cast onto the data, de-
rived from the methodology here employed, rather than reflecting the objective nature of
the evidence.
With this said, it has often been observed that some Torah scrolls from Qumran can be
classed as ‘independent’ of any of the later recensions. For example, 11QpaleoLeva may
be said to have an orthographic style that is close to the MT, but also reflects some confu-
sion of gutturals that seems out of place in that orthographic tradition. 4QDeutc reflects
several differences in grammatical gender and number, and has some short additions or
omissions relative to the MT that are not known in the other witnesses. Even 4QNumb,
though in agreement with the SP in several of its interpolations, has a distinct ortho-
graphic style common to many of the Qumran sectarian documents, while also reflecting
some features known from the LXX Vorlage (against the SP), and some unique features.
Some of the Torah scrolls counted in the present analysis may not be scriptural manu-
scripts in the strict sense, instead being identified as short excerpts or abbreviated