Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

brill.com/text

The Socio-Religious Setting

of the (Proto-)Masoretic Text

Emanuel Tov*
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
emanuel.tov@mail.huji.ac.il

Abstract

We find the proto-Masoretic texts (MT) in two synagogues, in texts and tefillin found
with the Judean Desert communities of the Zealots and the followers of Bar Kokhba,
the targumim, Jewish-Greek translations, and rabbinic literature. After 70CE, proto-MT
was in the hands of the rabbis, and prior to that time in the hands of similar cir-
cles. However, there were also persons and communities that did not use MT. None of
their versions were based on MT, with the possible exception of the quotations of the
Hebrew Ben Sira in Jeremiah. The persons and communities that did not use the proto-
MT text are the Qumran community and the authors of all the Second Temple rewritten
Bible compositions, based on either SP, the LXX, or a combination of the two. These
conclusions are instructive regarding the socio-religious environment of the proto-MT,
but not about the proto-MT text itself, which remains enigmatic.

Keywords

Dead Sea Scrolls – Masoretic text – synagogue – Hebrew Bible – textual analysis –
proto-Masoretic text – Judean Desert

* Daniel Schwartz of the Hebrew University kindly discussed some of the historical implica-
tions of this paper with me. I also thank the anonymous reader of this paper. The responsi-
bility for this paper lies with me.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/2589255X-02701009

136 tov

1 Proto-Masoretic Texts: Definition

There has been much progress in the research of the Masoretic text since the
first Judean Desert scrolls were found seventy years ago. The medieval com-
ponents of the Masoretic Text, its vowels and accents, were not included in
the ancient scrolls, and they continue to be studied as medieval data based
on earlier sources. However, the consonantal framework is ostensibly ancient,
as it was preceded by virtually identical ancient texts such as those found in
some of the Judean Desert scrolls that are now called proto-Masoretic. That
term implied that ancient texts such as some Judean Desert scrolls or the base
of the LXX agreed with the consonantal framework of the medieval text before
the vowels and accents were applied to them. We have seen much progress in
this area of research over the past seventy years.
For example, a new term has been invented. Few scholars realize today that
the term “proto-Masoretic” did not exist seventy years ago. At one point, schol-
ars started using that term when describing Judean Desert scrolls that were so
closely connected to the medieval texts that the latter could be conceived of as
the immediate continuation of the former. If I am not mistaken, this term was
first used by William F. Albright in an influential 1955 study launching his “local
texts theory.” In this study, he wrote about the three text “recensions” located
in three different localities, Babylonia (“the proto-Masoretic text-tradition”),
Egypt (“the Egyptian recension of the LXX”), and Palestine.1
Albright’s suggestion greatly influenced his student Frank M. Cross, who
accepted the local texts theory together with its terminology. Cross developed
the theory further, and the new terminology is first visible in his influential
book The Ancient Library of Qumran published in 1958, based on his Haskell
Lectures for 1956–1957.2 From that time onwards, Cross systematically used the
term “proto-Masoretic,”3 while in his earlier publication from 1952 he had not
used this term.4

1 William F. Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible,” BASOR 140 (1955):
27–33, here 30. Indeed, the program “Google Books Ngram Viewer” indicates that this term did
not appear in the literature written in the English language prior to 1955 (courtesy of Anthony
Le Donne).
2 Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (London:
Duckworth, 1958; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961) = ALQ1; The Ancient Library of Qumran,
3rd ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) = ALQ3.
3 Cross, ALQ1, 173, 178, 190.
4 Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epi-
graphic Evidence, AOS 36 (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952).

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 137

Presently, the term “proto-Masoretic” is well rooted in the scholarly jargon,

but scholars have different realities in mind when using this term, and in order
to get to the root of the problem we first have to clarify this matter. The confu-
sion started in the first years following the discovery of the Scrolls with William
H. Brownlee5 and William F. Albright. Albright, probably the first scholar to
use the term “proto-Masoretic,” called many scrolls “proto-Masoretic” that we
would characterize differently today. For example, he described 1QIsaa as a text
“belonging to the proto-Massoretic type, though it has a much fuller vocaliza-
tion,”6 further portrayed as “an offshoot of the proto-Massoretic text-tradition
in Babylonia.”7 The second Isaiah scroll, 1QIsab, is also described as “proto-
Massoretic,”8 while in my present terminology this term fits neither scroll.
Albright may be forgiven for creating some confusion, since he wrote at a
time when little was known about the Scrolls and when scholars were not yet
able to develop a textual outlook. Now that much more evidence is in front of
us, we should be able to make more precise statements. The truth of the matter
is that many scholars use the term proto-Masoretic for all the scrolls from the
Judean Desert sites, including Qumran, that show some kind of affinity with
the medieval text. I was guilty of the same confusion myself; until some years
ago, I, too, assigned the term proto-Masoretic to such scrolls as 1QIsab. In the
second edition of my TCHB (2001),9 I still used that term for this scroll, while
in the third edition (2012) I used a different one, “MT-like,” to distinguish the
Qumran texts from the Judean Desert scrolls that are virtually identical to the
medieval tradition.10 In 1QIsab, I find twenty deviations from MT in a single col-
umn (col. XXI), eleven in orthography and nine in small details.11 However, it is
not conducive to precise scholarship for all the scrolls that have some kind of
affinity to MT to be characterized in the same way.

5 Millar Burrows with the assistance of John C. Trever and William H. Brownlee, The Dead
Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, Vol. 1: The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Com-
mentary (New Haven: ASOR, 1950), xiii; Burrows remarks here on the closeness of the large
Isaiah scroll to MT: “is substantially that presented considerably later in the MT.”
6 Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions,” 28–29.
7 Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions,” 30.
8 Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions,” 30.
9 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress;
Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001).
10 Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012, 31–32.
11 See TCHB2, 31.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

138 tov

2 Proto-Masoretic Texts: Essence

Moving from terminology to content, I will first try to identify the real proto-
Masoretic texts. However, what is our frame of reference when comparing
ancient sources with the medieval texts, since the latter differ among them-
selves in small details? The accurate Tiberian manuscripts often differ from the
Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Italian manuscripts while, within the Tiberian group,
Codex L hardly differs from the Aleppo Codex. If we take Codex L as our point of
reference, there are Judean Desert scrolls that differ no more from that codex
than the medieval texts differ from one another. These Judean Desert scrolls
differ slightly from Codex L, merely up to two percent of their words. This is
the first circle of true proto-Masoretic scrolls that have their natural continua-
tion in the medieval texts, for example, MasPsa (end of the first century BCE),
MasLevb (30BCE–30CE), 5/6ḤevPs (50–68CE), and MurXII (ca. 115 CE). The sec-
ond circle, still within the Masoretic family, differs in up to ten percent of its
words, in minute spelling differences, and in small details in content and lan-
guage. I assign the name MT-like texts to this group (while Armin Lange labels
them semi-Masoretic texts12). Examples are 4QJera (225–175 BCE), 1QIsab (50–
25BCE), and 4QJerc (25–1BCE).13

3 Opposition between Proto-Masoretic and Other Texts in Antiquity

One of the amazing facts about the Judean Desert text corpora is that they dis-
play a very clear dichotomy. The Qumran corpus is characterized by textual
variety, while the other sites only reflect the proto-Masoretic text. The textual
variety of Qumran includes a large number of MT-like texts in the Torah, along
with a small number of texts that are close to SP and the LXX, and a large num-
ber of non-aligned texts in the other books. In my analysis, there are no Qumran
texts that are long enough to be identified as proto-MT. The only exceptions are
8QPhyl I and 4QGenb (50–100CE), but the latter text, although classified as a
Qumran text, probably derived from one of the other Judean Desert sites.14

12 Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, I: Die Handschriften biblischer
Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 16.
13 On all these texts, as well as all other scrolls mentioned in this study, see Armin Lange, “2.2.
Ancient Hebrew Texts,” in Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1B, Pentateuch,
Former and Latter Prophets, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 22–59.
14 See James R. Davila in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Frank
Moore Cross, DJD XII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994 [repr. 1999]), 31.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 139

Barthélemy, who was one of the first scholars to recognize certain aspects
of this dichotomy, ascribed the textual differences between Qumran and the
Judean Desert sites to chronological factors, as did most scholars subse-
quently.15 His terminology may be misleading, but the intentions are clear. He
distinguished between (i) pre-Masoretic texts such as 1QIsab (cf. Tov’s term
“MT-like”) that are further removed from MT and (ii) proto-Masoretic texts, e.g.,
MurXII, that are virtually identical to MT. According to this scholar, the pre-
Masoretic texts preceded proto-Masoretic texts. However, the real background
of this dichotomy is sociological, as we shall see. The Qumran community and
the other Judean Desert communities selected the Scripture texts that they
kept in their midst.
The differences between the two corpora cannot be chronological since they
overlap to some extent: at the Judean Desert sites, scrolls were found at both the
early site of Masada (texts written between 50BCE and 30 CE)16 and the later
sites of Wadi Murabbaʿat, Wadi Sdeir, Naḥal Ḥever, Naḥal Arugot, and Naḥal
Ṣeʾelim dating to the period of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132–135 CE (texts copied
between 20 and 115CE).17 The recently opened En-Gedi scroll also belongs to
the later group; it should probably be dated to the first or second century CE.18
These scrolls thus run parallel with the evidence from Qumran, where, starting
with 50BCE, we find more than one hundred texts dating between 50 BCE and
70CE.19 These Qumran texts are not proto-Masoretic, but MT-like. On the other

15 Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’ Ancien Testament, 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les

12 Prophètes, OBO 50/3 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992), xcviii–cxvi. The English translation of this work was published posthu-
mously in 2012: Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old
Testament Text Project (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 383–409, here 389.
16 Especially MasPsa and MasLevb.
17 See Ian Young, “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A
Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?,” DSD 9 (2002): 364–390; Armin Lange,
“The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the
Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in
Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Nora David and Armin Lange, CBET 57 (Leuven: Peeters,
2010), 43–96.
18 See Michael Segal et al., “An Early Leviticus Scroll from En-Gedi: Preliminary Publica-
tion,” Textus 26 (2016): 29–58, http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/units.php?cat=5020andincat=
4972, accessed March 29, 2018.
19 Midpoint dates: 50 BCE: 14 texts; 37 BCE: 16 texts; 25 BCE: 6 texts; 20 BCE: 1 text; 18 BCE: 1 text;
15 BCE: 15 texts; 13 BCE: 1 text; 10 BCE: 1; 5 BCE: 1 text; 1 BCE: 1 text; 10 CE: 3 texts; 15 CE: 4 texts;
20 CE: 14 texts; 25 CE: 3 texts; 27CE: 1 text; 35 CE: 2 texts; 44CE: 1 text; 50CE: 22 texts; 59CE: 3
texts; 65 CE: 1 text; 82CE: 1 text. The dates are quoted from the summary by Brian Webster
in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert Series, ed. Emanuel Tov, DJD XXXIX (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 351–446.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

140 tov

hand, the other half of the Qumran evidence is early, starting with the third
century BCE. Therefore, it would not be correct to present the data as a move
from textual variety at the early site of Qumran to the exclusive use of the proto-
MT at the presumably later Judean Desert sites. Rather, textual variety coexisted
with the use of a single text, the proto-MT.20 In the period between 50 BCE and
70CE, we find only proto-Masoretic scrolls at the Judean Desert sites while we
find none at Qumran. On the other hand, in that period, we find Masoretic texts
at Qumran from different representatives of the Masoretic family, namely the
second circle of Masoretic texts that are further removed from the nucleus of
the proto-Masoretic texts, the MT-like texts.21
There is only one explanation for the present situation: the community that
lived at Qumran had textual preferences that differed from those of the Judean
Desert communities. It is no coincidence that in the same period, between
50BCE and 70CE, only proto-Masoretic scrolls ended up at the Judean Desert
sites, and no such scrolls were taken to Qumran. Instead, at Qumran we find
evidence of a variety of textual profiles. This assumption is supported by the
evidence of the tefillin, adding a sociological aspect to the textual evidence.
The Qumran tefillin differ from those from the Judean Desert sites (Murab-
baʿat, Naḥal Ḥever, Naḥal Ṣeʾelim, etc.). For the sake of argument, the latter
will be called “Judean Desert tefillin” even though Qumran is also found in the
Judean Desert.
The many tefillin found at the Judean Desert sites differ from those at Qum-
ran with regard to these parameters:22
1. Choice of passages (either the four required passages mentioned in the
rabbinic literature or a mixture of required and nonrequired passages);

20 In the words of Van der Woude, “… there was a basically uniform tradition besides a plu-
riform tradition in Palestine Judaism in the last centuries BC”: Adam S. van der Woude,
“Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Tes-
tament,” in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of
A.S. van der Woude, ed. Jan N. Brenner and Florentino García Martínez (Kampen: Kok
Pharos, 1992), 151–169 (163).
21 4QGenc (44 CE); 4QGene (37 BCE); 4QGenj (37 BCE); 4QDeute (37BCE); 4QDeutg (15CE);
4QJudgb (15 BCE); 4QKgs (37 BCE); 1QIsab (37 BCE); 4QIsaa (37BCE); 4QIsab (37BCE); 4QIsae
(15 BCE); 4QIsag (25 BCE); 4QJerc (15 BCE); 11QEzek (10CE); 4QPsc (59CE); 2QRutha (60CE);
4QRuthb (10 CE). I did not include the many texts from 50 BCE. The dates are quoted from
the summary by Brian Webster mentioned in n. 19.
22 The data are provided in the tables and analysis in my study “The Tefillin from the Judean
Desert and the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,” in Is There a Text in This Cave? Stud-
ies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke, ed. Ariel Feldman,
Maria Cioată, and Charlotte Hempel, STDJ 119 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 277–292.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 141

2. Spelling (either the conservative MT spelling or the spelling of the Qum-

ran Scribal Practice [QSP]);
3. Content (either the readings of MT or a variety of readings [SP-LXX]);
4. The manufacturing of the tefillin (either the practices prescribed by the
halakah of the rabbis or a different set of practices).
Based on these parameters, two different profiles of tefillin are recognized, as
the inclusion of Scripture passages in the tefillin usually coincides with their
textual character and the manufacturing methods:
1. Rabbinic-type tefillin from the Judean Desert contain the passages
required by the rabbis together with the spelling and content of MT (both
proto-MT and MT-like). They lack interlinear additions as a means of cor-
recting,23 do not break up words at the ends of lines,24 are written on
neatly shaped pieces of leather, and disallow the writing on both sides
of the leather and the squeezing in of letters at the ends of lines.
2. Tefillin from Qumran contain passages beyond those required by the rab-
bis, they use a harmonizing Bible text, which usually reflects the texts of
the LXX and SP that were current in Israel as popular texts, and they are
written in the spelling and morphology of the Qumran Scribal Practice
type. The Qumran tefillin differ from the rabbinic tefillin in all the manu-
facturing details described in the previous paragraph.
The distinction between the two main types is not absolute, since one tefillin
found at Qumran (8QPhyl I) is of the rabbinic type. Furthermore, some tefillin
that were found at Qumran do not contain nonrequired passages, and are not
written in the QSP (4QPhyl C, D–E–F, R, S, XQPhyl 4). This fact probably indi-
cates that the Qumranites not only produced new tefillin, but also imported
tefillin from outside. The content of the Qumran tefillin was probably adapted
from tefillin that had been imported.

4 Background of MT

The textual variety of the Qumran corpus commands a separate analysis since,
in my view, this variety was imported into Qumran from elsewhere. I now turn
to the nature of the proto-Masoretic texts. These texts, and therefore also the
later MT, were a mixed bag textually before they were incorporated in the MT
collection. A slight layer of unity was imposed on them at a later stage. In the

23 These additions are forbidden according to y. Meg. 1.71c: “One may hang ⟨the letter above
the line⟩ in scrolls, but one may not hang ⟨the letter above the line⟩ in tefillin or mezuzot.”
24 This practice was forbidden by Sop. 2.1.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

142 tov

first stage, each biblical book formed a separate textual unit from other Scrip-
ture books, and was subject to constant change. All the proto-Masoretic texts
went through two stages of development; during the first stage, each Scripture
book was inconsistent at all levels, both internally and externally, in compar-
ison with other Scripture books, especially in matters of spelling,25 and was
subject to perpetual motion regarding its content. In the second stage, extreme
care was taken to no longer change the text and from then onwards it became a
very carefully transmitted text. However, significant as these assumptions may
be—and they are mere assumptions—they do not bring us closer to clarifying
the enigmatic background of the proto-MT. I will thus try to collect a few snip-
pets of information on the first stage of that text from internal and external
sources. Internal data may give us some clues about the nature of the proto-MT
text by looking inside the text. External data help us to analyze the persons and
sources that embraced the proto-MT. The proto-MT influenced these sources,
and not vice versa.
There is no evidence regarding the persons who shaped the proto-Masoretic
text. It is very enticing to assume that certain theological circles were involved
in the rewriting of at least a minute layer of the proto-MT text before it became
sacrosanct, but the evidence is still lacking.
A comparison of the proto-MT with other textual witnesses reveals some fea-
tures about that text. Undoubtedly, this kind of comparison is subjective and
in each book the evidence is different. In the Torah, MT provides a conservative
text as opposed to a harmonizing and facilitating one in the other witnesses.26
On the other hand, in Joshua 20 it offers a harmonizing text, bringing the ear-
lier law of the city of refuge of the LXX based of Numbers 35 (P) into agreement
with the laws of Deuteronomy 19.27 I could continue in this way. In the story of
David and Goliath, MT adds a long theological explanation to the story of the
LXX, stressing that God can bring victory to his people even through unimpor-
tant people (1Sam 17:12–31). In Jeremiah, the second layer of MT stresses the
guilt of the nation and the centrality of God.28 However, I do not know how
much these revisional layers in MT have in common. For example, Stipp con-

25 MT is an inconsistent collection, in spelling both within and between the books, in sense
divisions, pisqah beʾemṣa pasuq, the extraordinary points, in linguistic features distin-
guishing the Torah from the other books, and in the separation of the early and late
books.
26 See my study “The Development of the Text of the Torah in Two Major Text Blocks,” Textus
26 (2016): 1–27. http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/units.php?cat=5020andincat=4972, accessed
March 29, 2018.
27 See my TCHB3, 294–297.
28 See TCHB3, 243.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 143

cluded that the added layers of MT in Jeremiah and Ezekiel have nothing in
common although both expand the short text underlying the LXX.29 This kind
of analysis does not provide information on the background of proto-MT. We
learn about the authors of the proto-MT books, or a layer in the development
of these books, but not necessarily about proto-MT itself.
By the same token, there is no proof that the proto-Masoretic texts changed
the content in any way in line with the views of proto-rabbinic circles in spite
of the attempt by Geiger30 and others to find Pharisaic and anti-Sadducean
changes in MT. Such theological changes as are found in the text were inserted
by individual scribes.31 The proto-Masoretic text influenced the rabbis and not
the other way around, because the text could no longer be changed when these
circles were operating.
Moving to external evidence, we would like to know which persons held on
to the proto-Masoretic texts in early centuries. Turning to archeological and lit-
erary sources, we find the proto-Masoretic texts in two synagogues (see below),
we find texts and tefillin in the hands of the Judean Desert communities of the
Zealots and the followers of Bar Kokhba, and later in the rabbinic literature.
On the one hand there is a long line of users of the proto-Masoretic texts that
can be identified with proto-rabbinic, Pharisaic, and rabbinic circles, and on
the other hand we identify the persons and communities that did not use the
proto-Masoretic texts.

4.1 Synagogues
On rare occasions, there is physical proof that MT was stored in synagogues.
Three scrolls found in two synagogues provide unequivocal proof of the pres-
ence there of proto-Masoretic texts.32 The latest evidence pertains to the Leviti-

29 Hermann-Josef Stipp, Studien zum Jeremiabuch, FAT 96 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015),
127–140.
30 Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der
innern Entwickelung des Judentums, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt a. Main: Madda, 1928; Breslau:
Heinauer, 1857); Alexander Rofé, “The Onset of Sects in Postexilic Judaism: Neglected
Evidence from the Septuagint, Trito-Isaiah, Ben Sira, and Malachi,” in The Social World
of Formative Christianity and Judaism, Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee, ed. Jacob
Neusner et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 39–49 (40–41); idem, “Sectarian Corrections
by Sadducees and Zealots in the Texts of the Hebrew Bible,” RivB 64 (2016): 337–347.
31 For example, Emanuel Tov, “Theological Tendencies in the Masoretic Text of Samuel,” in
After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts: The Historical Books, ed. Hans
Ausloos et al., BETL 246 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 3–20.
32 The two Masada scrolls are luxury scrolls, as determined by their low rate of scribal inter-
vention and their large top and bottom margins. See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and
Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004),

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

144 tov

cus scroll from the first or second century CE (based on paleography) found in
the aron ha-qodesh of the En-Gedi synagogue.33 That synagogue is dated from
the late third/early fourth century to ca. 600CE.34 The text of this fragmentary
scroll of Leviticus 1–2 agrees in all its details, including the paragraph breaks,
with Codex L, making it the first ancient source to agree completely with the
medieval MT text.
The Masada Deuteronomy scroll35 (Deut 33:17–34:6) contains merely sixty-
seven partial words.36 All of them agree with Codex L, including one paragraph
break (33:19/20), with the exception of one spelling detail (33:19 MT Codex L
‫ ;ושפוני‬MasDeut ‫)ושפני‬. The scroll has been dated to the early Herodian period
(30–1BCE).37 Both scrolls were placed under the synagogue38 floor in two sep-
arate genizot.39
The Masada Ezekiel40 scroll (35:11–38:14), dating to 50–1 BCE, containing four
large fragmentary columns, likewise reflects the text of Codex L with a few
exceptions: eight differences in spelling, three differences in small details. In
paragraph breaks, MasEzek is almost identical to some of the medieval texts

125–129. The size of the top margin of the En-Gedi scroll cannot be verified because of the
shrinkage of the leather following the fire.
33 See Segal, “Leviticus Scroll.”
34 Yoseph Porath et al., The Synagogue of Roman-Byzantine En-Gedi (forthcoming). In this
case, the archeological evidence for the synagogue is later than that for the scrolls them-
selves; this shows that the scrolls could have been used for a considerable time, which is
not unusual in a synagogue environment. In the meantime, see the statements of Porath
in Segal et al., “An Early Leviticus Scroll,” 3.
35 MasDeut (1043/1–4) [Mas 1c]; see Shemaryahu Talmon, “Hebrew Fragments from Masada,”
in Masada VI, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports, ed. Shemaryahu Tal-
mon and Yigael Yadin (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999), 51–58.
36 This scroll contains the end of the book. It is not impossible that the last sheet(s) were
damaged due to excessive use (cf. the re-inking of the last column of 1QIsaa). I am aware
that this fragment is of a very limited scope, but its luxury character (see n. 32), usually
connected with MT content, should be taken into consideration as well. See Tov, Scribal
Practices, 127.
37 Talmon, “Hebrew Fragments,” 53.
38 It is unclear whether the building already served as a synagogue in that period, but Yigael
Yadin, Masada, Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand (Jerusalem: 1966), 181–192
thinks that this was the case. In any event, when the Zealots arrived, they definitely used
the building as a synagogue. See Ehud Netzer, Masada III, The Yigael Yadin Excavations
1963–1965, Final Reports, The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991), 402–438.
39 See Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 2000), 35–41.
40 MasEzek (1043–2220) [Mas 1d]; see Talmon, “Hebrew Fragments,” 59–75.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 145

as recorded by Talmon.41 On the other hand, the common text of Codex L and
MasEzek differs often from that of LXX in these chapters.
If the proto-Masoretic text was used in the synagogues, as suggested by these
scrolls, the diffusion of that text in Israel was dependent upon the number
of synagogues.42 In these synagogues, Scripture scrolls were kept in an aron
ha-qodesh43 but sometimes they were brought into the building only for the
service.

4.2 Judean Desert Collections

The people who left Scripture scrolls behind at the Judean Desert sites used the
proto-Masoretic text exclusively. This pertains to the early corpus at Masada
(texts written between 50 BCE and 30 CE) and the later corpus at the Judean
Desert sites of Wadi Murabbaʿat, Wadi Sdeir, Naḥal Ḥever, Naḥal Arugot, and
Naḥal Ṣeʾelim, dating to the period of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132–135CE (texts
copied between 20 and 115CE). What the persons behind these two corpora, the
Zealots of Masada and the followers of Bar-Kokhba, have in common is that
they were freedom fighters and political rebels. At the same time, in religious
matters they closely followed the guidance of the (proto-)rabbinic spiritual
centers. Some scholars stress the priestly influence on the leadership of the
Second Jewish Revolt.44 It is fair to say that we have access to only a small per-
centage of the proto-Masoretic text, possibly five percent, but since all the early
texts are virtually identical to the medieval MT, I believe that also in the other
books the proto-Masoretic texts would have been identical to the medieval text.
Furthermore, a close link between the rabbis and the proto-Masoretic text is
reflected in the content of most Judean Desert tefillin, which are written in the
MT orthography and reflect the instructions of the rabbis for the manufacturing
of the tefillin (see above, §3).
Remarkably, the same distinction between two types of Hebrew evidence
(textual variety at Qumran and the exclusive use of the proto-MT at the other
sites) is recognizable in the Greek texts found in the Judean Desert.45 The Greek
Pentateuchal texts from Qumran reflect the central tradition of the LXX, and

41 Talmon, “Hebrew Fragments,” 73.

42 See Levine, Synagogue, 20, 58. See further below.
43 Levine, Synagogue, 327–332.
44 See David M. Goodblatt, “The Title Nasi and the Ideological Background of the Second
Revolt,” in The Bar Kokhva Revolt—A New Approach, ed. Aron Oppenheimer and Uriel Rap-
paport (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984), 113–132. Heb.
45 For the Greek texts, see my paper “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert,” in
Emanuel Tov, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 339–364.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

146 tov

sometimes an earlier stage, occasionally differing from MT. On the other hand,
8ḤevXII gr from Naḥal Ḥever embodies a first-century BCE Jewish revision
of the OG Minor Prophets towards the proto-Masoretic text. Thus, both the
Hebrew and Greek texts from Qumran reflect a community that displays an
open approach to the Scriptural text, not tied down to the proto-MT, while
the other sites in the Judean Desert represent an approach of adhering only
to the proto-Masoretic text in their Hebrew and Greek texts. The information
from the Nahal Ḥever scroll thus enriches our knowledge of the social setting
of the proto-Masoretic texts in a way that has not been utilized in the past
for understanding the Hebrew texts. At the same site of Naḥal Ḥever, we find
not only the proto-Masoretic scrolls of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Psalms,
but also a Greek Scripture version that Barthélemy connected with rabbinic
Judaism in the title of his prepublication of that scroll.46 Barthélemy exag-
gerated when forging a link between the individual translation options and
rabbinic exegesis,47 but the extreme literalism of the Naḥal Ḥever scroll,48 now
named kaige-Th, does reflect the line of exegesis of Rabbi Akiva. Together with
the translation of Aquila, this is probably the most literal Bible translation. In
this Greek scroll, we note in particular the writing of the divine name in paleo-
Hebrew characters,49 a custom meant to express reverence for the name of
God.50 It is also very relevant to note that many of the biblical quotations in
Paul’s writings follow this kaige-Th version or another version that is close to
MT. When viewed from the angle of the textual variety in ancient Israel, it is very
significant that Paul opted sometimes for this text that was associated with the

46 Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963). The recen-
sion included in this Naḥal Ḥever scroll, also identified by Barthélemy in parts of the
so-called Septuagint, was, according to Barthélemy, executed “under the influence of the
Palestinian rabbinate” (subtitle of the book). Barthélemy dated the scroll to the middle of
the first century CE (scribe A preceded scribe B), while Peter J. Parsons in DJD VIII, 26 (see
n. 48) preferred a date towards the end of the first century BCE.
47 See also Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Recensions, Revision, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy
and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions,” Textus 15 (1990): 153–163.
48 See the analysis in Emanuel Tov with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft, The Greek Minor
Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection I), DJD VIII (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1990), 106–145.
49 The Naḥal Ḥever scroll is the earliest source to present the Tetragrammaton in paleo-
Hebrew letters; the earliest source to use the square Aramaic characters is P.Fouad 266b
(Ra 848, middle of first century BCE). See my study “P. Vindob. G 39777 (Symmachus)
and the Use of the Divine Names in Greek Scripture Texts,” http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/
symposiums/15th/papers/Tov.pdf, accessed March 29, 2018.
50 This custom is also reflected in several of the regulations in rabbinic literature for the care-
ful writing of the divine names in Hebrew texts. See, for example, p. T. Meg. 1.71d (cf. Sop.
4.1–8).

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 147

Pharisees. However, he more frequently opted for the more popular Palestinian
text that was included in the LXX.51
At a later period, the great majority of the biblical quotations in rabbinic lit-
erature and the piyyutim (liturgical hymns) reflect the text of proto-MT. This
trend is very clear and therefore the few deviations from MT in these sources52
are negligible. Proto-MT is further reflected in the targumim, the Jewish-Greek
translations, and the Vulgate.53
Thus, the proto-Masoretic text was in the hands of the Pharisees after 70CE
as well as before that time, in addition to being in the hands of similar circles
that cannot always be exactly defined.54 But this does not mean that the proto-
Masoretic text shows traces of Pharisaic influence.
As a counterweight to the communities that used the proto-MT texts, I now
turn to the persons and communities that did not use the proto-Masoretic texts.
In the first place, this is the Qumran community in whose midst we found only
a single proto-Masoretic text, 8QPhyl I.55 Other Qumran texts that have been
considered proto-Masoretic are either too small or their character is too uncer-
tain to be considered as such.56

51 It remains intriguing that Paul used both the Old Greek version and the kaige-Th revi-
sion for the same biblical book (Isaiah), apparently under the same conditions, and in the
same Epistles (Romans, 1 Corinthians). See my analysis and references to earlier literature
in “The Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity,” in Die Septuaginta und das frühe
Christentum: The Septuagint and Christian Origins, ed. T.S. Caulley and Hermann Licht-
enberger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 3–25. Revised version: Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3, VTSup 167 (Leiden: Brill,
2015), 449–470.
52 See Tov, TCHB3, 33.
53 See my study “The Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin Translations of Hebrew Scripture vis-à-vis
the Masoretic Text,” in Tov, TCHB, Qumran, Septuagint, 82–94.
54 I gratefully acknowledge some of the criticisms of David Andrew Teeter, Scribal Laws,
Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple
Period, FAT 92 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 227–237.
55 The proto-MT 4QGenb, although classified as a Qumran text, probably derived from one
of the Judean Desert sites; see n. 14 above.
56 4QXIIe (75–50 BCE); 4QEzeka (50 BCE); 4QDeute (50–25BCE); 2QRutha (30–1BCE);
4QDeutg (1–50 CE); 4QGenb (50–100 CE). These texts have been suggested as being proto-
MT by Armin Lange, but as they are very fragmentary, and with a content of around one
hundred fragmentary words, their textual profile cannot be assessed well. Besides, 4QXIIe
is not masoretic. See Armin Lange, “ ‘They Confirmed the Reading’ (y. Taʿan. 4:68a): The
Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period,” in From Qum-
ran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures
in Honor of His 65th Birthday, ed. Armin Lange et al., FRLANT 230 (Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 29–80, here 54–55.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

148 tov

I found no evidence that any Second Temple composition is based on MT.

This shows that MT was not used as the base for writing additional composi-
tions. There are no clear indications that any of the Qumran scrolls, the Apoc-
rypha, or the Pseudepigrapha are based unmistakably on MT to the exclusion of
other sources. If one were to remove the idiosyncratic readings from the Temple
Scroll or the pesharim, we would not be left with MT. Although some Qumran
compositions and quotations are based seemingly on MT, this assumption can-
not be substantiated when there is no opposition between MT and these other
sources. In only one case is the text of MT quoted to the exclusion of other texts,
but the evidence is limited. This pertains to the long MT text of Jeremiah when
compared with the short LXX text, as shown by Armin Lange for Ben Sira and
three Qumran compositions.
Lange demonstrated that the Hebrew text of Ben Sira quoted Jeremiah in
a few readings according to the long version of MT and not the short version
of 4QJerb,d and the LXX.57 From his examples, I quote: Jer 1:10 (= Sir 49:7); 18:6
(= Sir 36[33]:13). Likewise, the quotations from Jer 33:17, 15 in 4QCommGen A
(4Q252) 5:2, 3–4; Jer 29(36):21 in 4QList of False Prophets (4Q339), 5–6; Jer 27:12
in 4QBarkhi Nafshi 3:3 follow the long text of MT and not the short text of the
LXX.58
In other instances for which allegedly an MT base was quoted, there is no
substantial opposition with other textual witnesses.

4.2.1 1QM
Armin Lange suggested that the War Scroll from Cave 1 displays the MT of
Jeremiah.59 On the other hand, Carmignac showed a few deviations from MT
in the quotations from Hebrew Scripture, but the evidence is very limited.60

57 Armin Lange, “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira,” in Making
the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible, ed. Innocent Himbaza,
OBO 273 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 118–161.
58 Armin Lange, “Texts within Texts: The Text of Jeremiah in the Exegetical Literature from
Qumran,” in Is There a Text in This Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls
in Honour of George J. Brooke, ed. Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioată, and Charlotte Hempel,
STDJ 119 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 187–208; idem, “The Text of the Book of Jeremiah according to
Barkhi Nafshi and the Rule of Benedictions,” in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and
Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint, ed. Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek,
and Daniel K. Falk, EJL 47 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 289–306.
59 Armin Lange, “The Text of Jeremiah in the War Scroll from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible in
Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Nora Dávid et al., FRLANT 239 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2012), 95–116.
60 Jean Carmignac, “Les citations de l’ Ancien Testament dans ‘La Guerre des Fils de la
Lumière contre Les Fils des Ténèbres,’ ” RB 63 (1956): 234–260, 375–390 (383).

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 149

Combining the evidence, there is no strong evidence in favor of MT over other

sources,61 or of other sources over MT, and therefore Wenthe claimed that no
certainty can be had regarding the Vorlage of 1QM.62

4.2.2 1QHa
Wernberg-Møller defended the view that 1QHa used MT,63 but this view cannot
be substantiated. In his analysis of the textual background of 1QHa, Wernberg-
Møller listed the cases in that scroll that are identical to MT64 and those that
are similar to it.65 He concluded that 1QHa is based on MT,66 in very few cases
against the LXX,67 but the evidence is very weak. Wernberg-Møller himself
oscillated between the assumption that 1QHa was based on MT and the view
that the text-critical value of 1QHa cannot be determined.68 Similar doubts
were expressed by Elwolde.69 On the other hand, Lange accepted the view that

61 Lange found five agreements between 1QM and MT against the LXX, all in very minor
details, sometimes involving the translational idiosyncrasies of the LXX, and none in the
recensional differences between MT and the LXX.
62 Dean O. Wenthe, “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM,” DSD 5 (1998): 290–319.
63 Preben Wernberg-Møller, “The Contribution of the Hodayot to Biblical Textual Criticism,”
Textus 4 (1964): 133–175. I quote from his conclusions: “We can say with certainty that the
text of the Bible quoted by the author(s) was, generally speaking, substantially that of the
textus receptus … The differences from MT which we may glean from 1QH, are not impres-
sive if looked at one by one” (p. 136). “We have in 1QH an apparently bewildering number
of cases where the form in which a Biblical tag is quoted agrees now with this, and now
with that version, against MT” (p. 137). “The author(s) of the Hymns knew a text which was
substantially the same as the Massoretic, but it was not identical with it in every detail”
(p. 138).
64 Pp. 145–146.
65 Pp. 146–156. Note that this group is larger than the first group. The next category (pp. 156–
166) lists quotations of biblical passages in which the poet plays freely with the biblical
text, and in which the deviations from MT (equaling the text of the versions) have no
textual value. Even less textual value is attached to the next category (pp. 166–173) that
exemplifies paraphrases of biblical phrases.
66 Pp. 173–175.
67 The evidence for this group is weak, except possibly for 1QHa I 23 (Isa 38:15); III 25 (Isa
14:4) against the LXX and 1QIsaa; III 32 (Isa 57:20).
68 Other examples of agreement with non-Masoretic sources as listed by Wernberg-Møller
on p. 147 are not convincing. The study of Jean Carmignac, “Les citations de l’Ancien Tes-
tament, et spécialement des Poèmes du Serviteur, dans les Hymnes de Qumrân,” RevQ 2
(1959–1960): 357–394 does not advance the discussion. Carmignac provides long lists of
quotations, but only in French and without text-critical analysis. The study of Menahem
Mansoor, “The Thanksgiving Hymns and the Massoretic Text (II),” RevQ 3 (1961): 387–394
discusses a few passages only.
69 John Elwolde, “The Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter: Text-Critical Contributions (Book 2: Pss
42–72),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

150 tov

1QHa is based on MT.70 He showed that very few quotations from Jeremiah
are based on MT to the exclusion of the LXX,71 but not in recensional readings
involving the longer/shorter text of Jeremiah.

4.2.3 CD, D
Tigchelaar suggested that the quotations of CD and D more or less follow MT.72
However, the evidence is not strong and does not involve instances of an oppo-
sition with other sources.

4.2.4 MMT
Brooke suggested that “all the quotations are very close to what may be labeled
the proto-MT,” but there is no opposition in these quotations with other wit-
nesses.73
On the other hand, there is ample proof that the Bible text of reworked Bible
compositions was based on a combination of pre-Samaritan texts and the LXX,
which were known to be closely linked before these two texts developed in dif-
ferent directions: Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Judaicarum, Gene-
sis Apocryphon, 4QComm Gen A (4Q252), 11QTemplea. At the same time, some
Qumran compositions were based on known biblical Qumran scrolls (4QTesti-
monia based on 4QDeuth; 4QTanḥ (4Q176) probably based on a Qumran scroll
such as 1QIsaa).

4.2.5 Diffusion
We saw a clear opposition between the proto-Masoretic texts and the other
texts used in ancient Israel. The proto-Masoretic texts are evidenced in two syn-

of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, Vols. I–II, VTSup 140/I–II (Leiden: Brill, 2011),
I:80–99; idem, “The Hodayot’s Use of the Psalter: Text-critical Contributions (Book 3: Pss
73–89),” DSD 17 (2010): 159–179.
70 Armin Lange, “The Textual History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Allusions and
Implicit Quotations in the Qumran Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birth-
day, ed. Jeremy Penner et al., STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 251–284.
71 Note especially Jer 18:22 as quoted in 1QHa 10:31; Jer 51:55 as quoted in 1QHa 10:29; possibly
also Jer 20:9 as quoted in 1QHa 16:31.
72 Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “The Cave 4 Damascus Document Manuscripts and the Text of the
Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, ed. Edward
D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (London: British Library; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press,
2002), 93–111.
73 George J. Brooke, “The Explicit Presentation of Scripture in 4QMMT,” in Legal Texts and
Legal Issues: Proceedings of the International Organization for Qumran Studies 1995, ed.
Moshe Bernstein et al., STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 67–88 (80).

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 151

agogues. They were also used by the Judean Desert communities of the Zealots
and the followers of Bar Kokhba, political revolutionaries who adopted the con-
servative text of the Pharisees and not one of the other texts. The proto-MT text
is reflected subsequently in the targumim and in the rabbinic literature. This
text, in evidence from the middle of the first century BCE onwards, but going
back to earlier times, was used exclusively among the rabbis after 70 CE. What
we do not know is whether the proto-Masoretic texts would have been found in
all the synagogues in Israel and how many synagogues there were.74 Probably
we should follow the cautious view of Lee Levine who assumed a small number
of such synagogues in pre-70CE Palestine.75 On the other hand, Miller assumes
a larger number, although most of them would have been in the nature of reg-
ular houses, and not magnificent edifices.76 The proto-MT probably was in use
in several of these synagogues and houses of learning.
Seventy years ago, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we probably
lived in a fool’s paradise when scholars thought that there were three main tex-
tual traditions, MT, LXX, and SP, in the Torah and two textual traditions in the
other books. Now we have to become accustomed to the much more complex
situation of a textual variety, but we do not know exactly how to combine the
snippets of information.
The earliest evidence for the proto-MT (texts from Masada from 50 BCE) is
much later than the earliest MT-like texts from Qumran (4QJera ascribed to
225–175BCE). In my view, this discrepancy resulted from the fact that no proto-
MT texts were preserved at the early site of Qumran, and the communities that
preserved the MT-like texts in the Judean Desert at a later period took with them
more recent scrolls. From early times onwards, the procedure of creating pre-
cise scrolls was based on a physical comparison with a master copy stored in a
central place. Only in this way could the exact identity of all scrolls be achieved.

74 According to one rabbinic tradition, there were 480 ‫ בתי כניסיות‬in Jerusalem alone, each of
which had a ‫ בית ספר‬and a ‫בית תלמוד‬. “Four hundred and eighty synagogues (‫)בתי כניסיות‬
were in Jerusalem, each of which had a ‫( בית ספר‬a house of reading of the unvocalized
text) and a ‫( בית תלמוד‬a house of learning), a house of reading for the ‫( מקרא‬the writ-
ten Law) and a house of learning for the ‫( משנה‬the oral Law)” (p.t. Meg. 3.73d). For the
many parallels, see Levine, Synagogue, 58. See further Shemuel Safrai, “Education and
the Study of the Torah,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, CRINT, Section One,
Volume Two, ed. Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern (Assen–Maastricht: Van Gorcum;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 945–970 (947). However, all scholars consider this number
“incredibly exaggerated” (Levine, Synagogue, 58).
75 See Levine as quoted in the previous footnote.
76 Stuart S. Miller, “On the Number of Synagogues in the Cities of ʾEreẓ Israel,” JJS 49 (1998):
51–66.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

152 tov

At the same time, less precise scrolls were created by scribes who freely inserted
a few changes into these scrolls.
However, most scholars explain the relation between the proto-MT scrolls
and the MT-like scrolls assuming a reverse process, as if the textual variety was
narrowed down by a process of so-called stabilization. It seems to me that there
is no real proof for this assumption, as it must have been technically impossible
to create a unified text in communities that were remote from one another.77
With all due reservation, we now try to combine these data and evaluations.
The medieval MT is a rabbinic text. When moving backwards, we note that the
proto-MT had a rabbinic background. It was adopted by the rabbis, reflected in
the targumim, quoted in rabbinic literature, and found in two early synagogues
and among the Judean Desert communities of Masada and the followers of Bar
Kokhba. The proto-MT text was thus accepted by the protorabbinic circles of
Eretz-Israel, the political revolutionaries from the Judean Desert who adopted
the conservative text of the Pharisees, and many generations of rabbis. It was
not embraced by the Qumran community or the persons writing the reworked
Bible compositions.
However, we have to be modest about these conclusions, because they are
instructive regarding the socio-religious environment of the proto-MT, but not
about the proto-MT text itself. The nature and the origin of that text, or texts,
remain as enigmatic as before. The interaction between the rabbinic or proto-
rabbinic movements and the biblical text requires a separate study but, in my
view, it is a one-way street. The biblical text influenced the rabbis and not
the other way around, with occasional exceptions. If found, I would call such
changes tendentious or sectarian and, in my view, they would be extremely
rare.78 Sectarian changes are almost nonextant in the Christian manuscripts of
the LXX, the Qumran Hebrew sectarian manuscripts, and the proto-MT; they
are also very rare in the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Bible was much too pre-
cious to be colored by sectarian readings.

5 Conclusions

The term proto-Masoretic text was invented some sixty years ago when it was
realized that some Judean Desert texts agree to such a degree with the medieval
MT that the latter may be conceived of as their immediate continuation. One

77 See my arguments in TCHB3, 174–180.

78 The place to look for examples would be the valuable monograph of Teeter, Scribal Laws.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153

the socio-religious setting of the (proto-)masoretic text 153

of the amazing facts about the Judean Desert text corpora is that they display
a very clear dichotomy. The Qumran corpus is characterized by textual vari-
ety, while the other sites only reflect the proto-Masoretic text. The differences
between the two corpora cannot be chronological since they overlap to some
extent; they are socio-religious.
We find the proto-Masoretic texts in two synagogues, in texts and tefillin in
the hands of the Judean Desert communities of the Zealots and the followers of
Bar Kokhba, in the targumim, Jewish-Greek translations, and the rabbinic lit-
erature. After 70CE, the proto-MT was in the hands of the rabbis; prior to that
time it was in the hands of similar circles that cannot always be defined pre-
cisely. On the other hand, there were also persons and communities that did
not use MT. To the best of my knowledge, none of their versions were based on
MT, with the possible exception of the quotations of the Hebrew Ben Sira in
Jeremiah. The persons and communities that did not use the proto-MT text are
the Qumran community and the authors of all the Second Temple rewritten
Bible compositions, which are based on either SP, the LXX, or a combination of
the two.
However, significant as these assumptions may be, they do not bring us
closer to clarifying the enigmatic background of the proto-MT itself. I there-
fore collected a few snippets of information on the first stage of that text from
internal and external sources.
We were able to trace the history of the persons and communities that
embraced the proto-MT; however, we have to be modest about these conclu-
sions because they are instructive regarding the socio-religious environment
of the proto-MT, but not about the proto-MT text itself, which remains enig-
matic. We do not know much about the origin of that text before it became the
proto-MT text. We may never be able to solve that issue although, at least in the
Torah, there may be some clues.79

79 I think that historical changes in the history of the Jewish people may have played an
important role in the creation of the two text blocks in the Torah, that of the MT and that
of all other texts, as described in my study “The Development of the Text of the Torah.” The
second block may have been created in Palestine after the return from the exile, while the
first one, a conservative text, could have been brought back from Babylon with the exiles.
Thus already Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions” and Frank M. Cross, “The Evolu-
tion of a Theory of Local Texts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank
M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 306–320.
Alternatively, the second text block could have co-existed with the first block in Palestine.
The SP and the derivatives of the LXX-SP group are indeed Palestinian, while all theories
about the geographic background of the first text block are mere hypotheses.

Textus 27 (2018) 135–153