The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible [Paperback]

In _The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible_ Eugene Ulrich presents a series of essays, once presented as papers for academic conventions, which present the history of the biblical text, starting with the Hebrew texts and progressing to the Greek and Latin texts.

In his essays Ulrich presents three key items: 1) before the Second Revolt (c. 132 CE) there were a pluriformity of texts; 2) until the destruction of the Second Temple, or even until the Second Revolt, the external shape of the "Scriptures" had not been established; and 3) it has too often been assumed that the MT was "the biblical text."

These three items run contrary to what many of us have been taught in years past about the formation of the Hebrew Bible.

Perhaps as much as one-half of the book addresses the question of how the biblical text came into being. The idea of a divinely inspired and faithfully handed down original text is quickly dismissed. The author instead advances the now familiar theory that the books of the bible were produced in editorial stages that included two major thrusts: The faithful repetition of important traditions, and the creative reshaping of those traditions in new theological directions. (Pg. 8)

If one wonders why so much attention is given to possible origins of the Bible instead of the Qumran scrolls themselves, the answer becomes apparent as the author strives to demonstrate that the Qumran biblical manuscripts continue this very process of textual evolution.

For this reader the value of the book lies in the chapters that present readings from the Qumran scrolls which are lined up with the same-verse-readings from a wide range of other ancient texts. The Samaritan Pentateuch; the Masoretic Text; the Septuagint; the Hexapla; and the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint all receive comparative attention.

The reader may not always agree with the conclusions of the author, but the easy-to-compare format allows one to quickly grasp a picture of the differences among the texts and to evaluate their import.

However, a reader does need to be forewarned that without a working knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and Latin one is left in a weak position from which to evaluate the conclusions the author draws.