chapter 6 Influence from the Scrolls

After April, 1948, when the discovery of biblical scrolls at Qumran became global news,1 scholars began the process of studying the scrolls in detail. Grad- ually, the text-critical implications of the scrolls, with their numerous small or large differences (variants) from the traditional Hebrew text, began to be appreciated. By 1996, the publication year of the most recent of the English translations under consideration, the work of examining the scrolls and eval- uating the variants found in them was well advanced, though it was not yet complete. Over the same span of years, about two-thirds of the ETs included in this study were produced by translators with access to at least some data from the scrolls. Has the availability of numerous ancient Hebrew variants from the scrolls changed or influenced the wording of these ETs? Motivated by this question, the present chapter represents an examination of the influence of sample portions of two scrolls. The first is the Great Isaiah Scroll, 1QIsaa, and the portions examined, XI 30—XIII 5 and XL 28—XLI 28, cor- respond to Isaiah 14 & 49. The Isaiah scroll was chosen because it was among the first scrolls discovered, the first published, and the first to have an influence on an English translation.2 Also, because of its excellent state of preservation, it has maintained pride of place among the Qumran scrolls, perhaps typifying the scrolls in the thinking of the general public.3 Chapters 14 & 49 of Isaiah were selected after a preliminary survey of the 1QIsaa readings adopted by RSV, NAB, and NEB. In chapters 14 & 49, these ver- sions display a pattern of significant scroll use combined with significant dis-

1 For details on the discovery and subsequent movements of the first scrolls, see the early accounts of Trever (1951) and Burrows (1955, 3–28) as well as the more recent summaries by Harold Scanlin (1993, 3–8) and James C.VanderKam (1994, 3–8), along with the literature cited by the latter two authors. 2 1QIsaa was among the original seven scrolls taken from Cave 1 in 1946 or 1947 (for comments on discovery date see VanderKam 1994, 3). It was photographed by Trever and edited by Bur- rows (Burrows 1950; cf. Trever 1972). A group of readings from it were adopted into the text of the 1952 RSV (cf. Trever 1951, 79). A newer edition of the scroll, with photographs and a tran- scription benefiting from the use of digital photographic tools, has been prepared by Parry and Qimron (1999, cf. vii–ix). 3 In large measure this seems still to be the case today, though, from a critical standpoint, it is generally acknowledged that 1QIsaa represents a popular or ‘vulgar’ edition of the biblical book and most of its numerous small variations from 픐 do not represent preferable readings.

© S.C. Daley, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391765_007 258 6. influence from the qumran scrolls agreement as to which scroll variants are to be preferred. In chapter 14 there are six scroll readings that are preferred by at least one of the versions surveyed but only one scroll reading that is adopted by all three. In chapter 49 there are five scroll readings that are preferred by at least one of the three versions but, again, only one that is adopted unanimously. This pattern of significant use and dis- agreement was taken as an indication that these sections of the scroll present modern translators with textual choices and may be used to test the text-critical praxis of all the post-1948 ETs. The second scroll to be examined is 4QSama, and the portion included in this study, columns I–IV, preserves parts of 1Samuel 1–3.4 These columns were chosen because of the relatively early publication of parts of them by Frank M. Cross (1953) and because of the textual difficulties present in the corre- sponding chapters of 픐. Difficulties in the traditional text provide translators with a motive for text-critical analysis, and 4QSama provides a number of read- ings that could be regarded as preferable. As with the sections of 1QIsaa chosen for study, it was estimated that an analysis of the initial columns of 4QSama would yield results indicative of the text-critical position of each English trans- lation vis-à-vis the scroll. A figure presented in the introduction (see Chapter 1, Section C, Figure 1) depicted the chronology and approximate revision lines of the ETs to be con- sidered throughout the study. This figure may be modified to show the chrono- logical divide between ETs that were completed before the discovery of the scrolls and those that were completed afterwards. The divide is not only chro- nological, rather, as Arie van der Kooij has expressed in his article, “The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew before and after the Qumran Discoveries” (2002), and as has indicated in TCHB (14–15), the finds both allow and require new understandings of the biblical text. The (RSV) was completed in 1952, after a list of variants from 1QIsaa had been made available to the committee5 but before the

4 For the precise limits of the material included from 4QSama, see Plate 121 in the first volume of Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of the (1991) or PAM 43.122. For further details regarding the content of the fragments shown in the photo- graph, see Edward D. Herbert (1997), Reconstructing Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Method Applied to the Reconstruction of 4QSama, where Appendix B (205–213) lists the range of verses covered by each fragment and takes account of more recent identifications. The verses cov- ered in PAM 43.122 are listed on p. 206. A graphic representation of the scroll, including a reconstruction of missing portions, is provided by Andrew Fincke in The Samuel Scroll from Qumran (2001). Finally, the entire scroll is transcribed and analyzed by Frank M. Cross, Jr. et al., in DJD XVII: 1 and 2Samuel, with columns I–IV being treated on pp. 28–48 (2005). 5 In April of 1948, after he had prepared a press release in regarding the first scrolls,