classification is still debated. In large part the fragments present a running
text of the Pentateuch but have frequent additions, possibly a few omis-
sions, and variant sequences. Accordingly, they were first published as
“4QReworked Pentateuch”; that is, the variants were deemed to outweigh
the agreements, and thus they were not the Pentateuch but beyond the
Pentateuch. A number of scholars, however, having digested the lessons
from the many variant, developing editions of the biblical books — that
additions, omissions, and altered sequences are characteristic of the bibli-
cal text in the Second Temple period — have increasingly recognized these
texts as a yet later form (or forms) of the Pentateuch, and thus refer to it as
4QPentateuch. It seems to be moderately developed beyond the expanded
Jewish version seen in 4QpaleoExodmand 4QNumband used by the Sa-
maritans; in fact, many of its variants agree with the SP, though none are
sectarian. Other scholars remain somewhere in a middle position between
“Pentateuch” and “reworked Pentateuch,” searching for a proper category
and term.Similar Examples from the MT, SP, and OG
Once taught by the variant editions posed by the biblical scrolls, scholars
could recognize similar examples long available in familiar sources. The
MT was recognized as containing revised and expanded editions when
compared with the OG, in the Tabernacle account (Exodus 35–40), the ac-
count of David’s induction into Saul’s service (1 Samuel 17–18), and the
book of Jeremiah. The SP was recognized as witnessing the already ex-
panded Jewish editions of the pentateuchal books with only slight theologi-
cal changes. The OG of Daniel was seen as an expanded form of the edition
in the MT — the reverse process compared with the situation in Jeremiah.
The Greek papyrus 967 may well also display an edition of Ezekiel that
is earlier than the edition now attested by the MT and the LXX. It has the
order of chapters as 36, 38, 39, 37, and 40, and lacks 36:23c-38. Analysis sug-
gests that this was the early form translated from a Hebrew text with that
order. A later Hebrew editor transposed chap. 37 into its present (MT) po-
sition and added the last section of chap. 36 (vv. 23c-38) at the same time as
a suitable eschatological introduction into chap. 37. Other ancient sources
join the biblical texts in adding their witness. Josephus, for example, as
seen above, used biblical texts similar to 4QJoshaand 4QSama, rather than
the forms in the MT, for hisJewish Antiquities.137The Jewish Scriptures: Texts, Versions, CanonsEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:03:58 PM