In 1994, Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White (now Crawford) published four manuscripts
(4Q364, 4Q365, 4Q366, and 4Q367) and identified a fifth (4Q158) as multiple copies of a
single composition which reworked the text of the Pentateuch, named 4QReworked
Pentateuch or 4QRP (Tov 1994a, DJD 13). These manuscripts have radically challenged the
way scholars conceptualize the history of the text of the Pentateuch. According to Tov and
White,
The five manuscripts of 4QRP share important characteristics. These five groups of fragments should therefore be seen as copies of the same composition, rather than, in more general terms, of the same literary genre. This composition contained a running text of the Pentateuch interspersed with exegetical additions and omissions. The greater part of the preserved fragments follows the biblical text closely, but many small exegetical elements are added, while other elements are omitted, or, in other cases, their sequence altered. The exegetical character of this composition is especially evident from several exegetical additions comprising half a line, one line, two lines, and even seven or eight lines (191, DJD 13).
On this analysis, 4QRP is a single literary work attested in five manuscripts and is a
composition distinct from its pentateuchal base text. Subsequent debates about the
18
Tov and Crawford argued that the five manuscripts of 4QRP should be considered
witnesses to a single composition based on some minimal agreement in overlapping text
against other witnesses and the similarity of methods used to rework the pentateuchal base
text. Several scholars have rejected their arguments, however. Zahn argues that the
agreements against other witnesses in overlapping texts are insignificant (2011b, 4). Segal
(2000, 396-397), Bernstein (1998, 134; 2005, 196; 2013a, 392), and Zahn (2011b, 229-230)
have stressed differences in the editorial techniques evidenced in each manuscript, arguing
instead for a more diverse collection of manuscripts with some similarities. Additionally,
Brooke has argued that the manuscripts cannot be reconstructed in the same way in places
where they overlap or nearly overlap, and suggests rather renaming them as five separate
compositions (namely, 4QReworked Pentateuch A-E, rather than 4QReworked Penateucha-e)
(2001). Even Crawford has now reversed her earlier opinion, concluding that they are not
copies of a single non-biblical composition (2008, 39).1
Tov’s and Crawford’s second assertion that 4QRP is a separate literary composition
“reworked” from the Pentateuch, rather than a copy of the Pentateuch proper, has also proven
to be controversial. Several scholars have argued that the types of changes noted in the 4QRP
manuscripts are also found in other witnesses commonly understood to be “biblical,”
suggesting that the 4QRP manuscripts should be understood as different versions of the
Pentateuch, rather than as non-biblical texts (Ulrich 2000, 76; Lange 2002, 27; Zahn 2011a,
27; 2011b, 236). Tov and Crawford have themselves recently adopted similar opinions,
though both note there is no clear evidence that these manuscripts were received by any
community as scripture (Tov 2007, 365-366; 2009, 26-28; 2010; Crawford 2008, 56-57).
1 Zahn (2011b, 5) notes of Tov’s more recent work, “Tov nowhere in these newer articles addresses the issue of
whether the 4QRP MSS represent a single composition, and continues to talk about 4QRP as if it were a single text.” On 19 February 2014, I asked Tov for clarification of his position, and he suggested that the question requires further study, but indicated that he still thinks of them as a closely related group of texts.
19
Segal argues that 4Q364-367 are biblical texts, but that 4Q158 is non-biblical (2000, 394-
395). Other scholars have supported the original position of Tov and Crawford that the 4QRP
manuscripts are in fact new literary compositions distinct from the Pentateuch itself (e.g.,
Bernstein 2013b, 497).
The debate about the literary status of the 4QRP manuscripts has greatly
problematized the distinction between a literary work and distinct derivative works that has
been so central to the study of the text of the Hebrew Bible/OT. In particular, formerly clearly
delineated categories of “biblical” texts and “non-biblical” or “para-biblical” texts have been
obscured by the 4QRP texts, which seem to bridge the gap between categories. Scholars have
typically responded to the dilemma in one of two ways. Some have argued for quantitative
measurements for determining when a reworked text becomes a new work. On this view, the
pentateuchal and Pentateuch-based literature is typically plotted along a spectrum of
reworking, with conservative texts on one end, free compositions on the other, and a graded
interval between them depending on how much a given text is reworked from its pentateuchal
base text (Brooke 2002; Crawford 2008, 13-15; Swanson 2004, 426-427; VanderKam 2002a,
99, 108; 2002b, 46). At some point on this spectrum, reworked texts depart so far from their
base texts that they become new compositions.
On the other hand, other scholars have argued for qualitative measurements for
determining when a reworked text becomes a new work. On this view, new compositions are
set apart from their base texts by significant types of differences, such as new narrative
settings, new speakers, and new scopes (Segal 2005; Zahn 2008; 2011b, 7-11, 239-241;
2011c). On this view, ancient editors used specific literary cues to indicate to readers that the
resulting rewritten work was to be read as a separate literary work supplementing that of the
20
A separate question related to the literary status of the 4QRP manuscripts is their
scriptural status. The two questions are often subsumed into one on the assumption that a
variant edition of a scriptural work would still be considered scripture but a distinct literary
work derived from a work of scripture would not inherit its scriptural status. This perspective
conflates two different questions, however, and tends to confuse more than illumine. In fact,
even rewritten derivative works may themselves be considered scripture, so we must consider
the question of their scriptural status and their literary relationship to their base texts
separately (Zahn 2011b, 9 n. 30).
The net result of studies on the 4QRP manuscripts has been to problematize the
traditional distinction between “biblical” and “non-biblical” manuscripts. At the very least,
the 4QRP manuscripts force us to speak with precision about the literary relationships
between reworked texts and their base texts and the scriptural status of the reworked texts.