Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants by Donald W. Parry

Abstract

Reviewed by: Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants by Donald W. Parry Ronald L. Troxel donald w. parry. Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants (Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible 3; Leiden: Brill, 2020). Pp. xiv + 509. €160/$192. It is a truism that study of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revolutionized textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible by affording an unprecedented window into the diversity of readings in Hebrew and the realia of scribal activity during the late Second Temple period. Digesting the evidence, however, has taken time. The first volume of Isaiah in the Hebrew University Bible Project contained the first rigorous review of variants from 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and pesharim from Cave 4. Readings from other scrolls appeared more frequently in the second and third volumes. The DJD critical editions began placing readings from the scrolls alongside other traditions more explicitly. The advance of Parry’s volume is its cataloging of all variants (to MT) among the [End Page 129] twenty-one Qumran Isaiah scrolls and the one from Murabbaʿat, arranged according to the order of verses and accompanied by explanations proposed by other scholars, together with his own analyses. The first chapter highlights the significance of the Qumran Isaiah scrolls as witnesses to the book and states the objective of collating and assessing all variants. P. reports having directly examined the scrolls, when possible, but also having studied photographs so as to provide exacting paleographic documentation. He collates ortho-graphic variants and utilizes reconstructed readings when physical damage partially obscures a word. Besides reporting all readings from the Isaiah scrolls, he includes direct quotations found in the pesharim, CD, 1QS, 1QM, and 4QTanḥumim. He draws on linguistic data, assessment of the literary context, and analysis of sense and text divisions; and he uses electronic searches to assess variation and distribution of linguistic features within the corpus. It is in his marshaling these analytics and citing proposals from various scholars that P.’s work rises to the level of a commentary on the text, rather than just a collation of variants. Parry’s recognition of the subjectivity of text-critical judgments (p. 11) is apparent in his frequent report of alternative solutions without advocating for one (e.g., pp. 38, 86, 140). Correspondingly, even when he states his judgment of which lemma is primary, he often reports alternative explanations, without launching a defense of his own (e.g., pp. 33, 36–37). In at least one case he concludes that it is “difficult to determine which text—MT or 1QIsaa—is primary” (p. 52), and elsewhere he confesses that a reading “remains a puzzle” (p. 58). Both his caution and his attestation of multiple proffered explanations are exemplary. His comments reflect use of historical grammar (e.g., pp. 35, 41, 93), familiarity with grammatical forms distinctive to the DSS (e.g., pp. 64, 93), and understanding of the effects of phonological change on orthography (e.g., pp. 159, 199). Observations about Qumran scribal practices play a role in his analysis (e.g., pp. 40, 199), as do comparative data from within a scroll, such as the use of the article (p. 31) or hê locale (p. 75) in 1QIsaa. In short, his commentary exemplifies expertise in the tools and practice of textual criticism, while recognizing the discipline’s epistemological limits. In a reviewof this commentary, it seems less helpful to evaluate his solutions to longstanding cruxes than to critique how he articulates explanations. For instance, despite asserting that placing the MT’s reading first in cataloging lemmas does not signal preference for the MT (p. 13), his claim that a two-word plus in 1QIsaa at 1:15 is a scribal harmonization with 59:3 rests on an argument that “MT is supported by another Qumran witness [4QIsaf], as well as the versions” (p. 37). The notion that a minus supports the MT (rather than simply agrees with it) implies that 4QIsaf is significant because of its confirmation of the MT more than its agreement with all witnesses that lack the phrase. A similar issue is his occasional use of language that prejudges a...