SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 129
boundaries of the verses are not a matter of fact. Some long verses may be separated into two
short ones, while some short verses may be combined into longer ones. Direct speech introduced
by rmal usually follows in the same verse, if the section quoted is not too long, but sometimes it
forms a separate verse. Nevertheless, the division into verses probably followed certain
principles. Usually, the boundaries of verses are fixed by syntactical considerations, but
sometimes the end point of the verse in MT is artificial. 179 At the same time, it is unlikely that
the length of verses was determined by the memory limitations of meturgemanim (thus
Barthélemy, “Les traditions anciennes” [see n. 190] 31), since the sizes of verses differ greatly
and different customs were in vogue at different times (according to m. Meg. 4.4, the meturgeman
offered his translation after each verse in the Torah and after three verses in the Prophets). The
main issue at stake is therefore the exegetical traditions which determined the limits of verses. For
example, on the basis of content exegesis in MT and other ancient traditions, the first verse in the
Torah ends after ≈rah (‘earth’) reading the second word as bara< (‘created’) rather than b e ro<
(‘[began] to create’) as it was understood by Rashi, several modern commentators, and the
NJPST translation. 180 The latter understanding would involve a larger unit (vv 1-3 of MT) for the
first verse of the Torah.
Written evidence
a. Hebrew/Aramaic biblical texts. In the great majority of the Hebrew/Aramaic biblical texts
(and by implication, all nonbiblical texts) from the Judean Desert, small units (verses or
‘Kleinstspatien’ in the terminology of Oesch, Petucha und Setuma) were not indicated, while
larger sense units (sections) were indicated by a system of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ sections, as
described in § 3 below. On the other hand, there is possible evidence for the indication of some
form of a division into verses in one or two biblical scrolls. While early written evidence for verse
division in Hebrew sources is very scarce or perhaps non-existent, it does exist for ancient
witnesses of the Aramaic and Greek translations (see below and APPENDIX 5A), the earliest of
which are contemporary with the witnesses of Hebrew Scripture from the Judean Desert. Such
evidence also exists for the medieval witnesses of SP and the Peshitta, both with a dicolon. 181 In
addition, the ancient oral tradition of verse division is reflected in the accent system of MT,
sometimes mentioned in the earlier rabbinic literature.
Although it has been suggested that a few Qumran manuscripts reflect verse division, it
appears that there is insufficient evidence for such a claim, with the possible exception of the first
two sources mentioned below. Partial evidence is not regarded as the beginning of a system of
indicating verse division: we presume that traditions of oral division already existed at the time,
and in view of the rabbinic prohibition of written indication (see above), such division was either
indicated in all or almost all instances in a given scroll or not at all.
• 4QDan a : This manuscript indicates spaces after six verses (2:24, 26, 28, 33, 48; 5:16; the space after 1:17 may
have been created by the flaking away of the leather), but not in fifteen other instances (1:19; 2:19, 21, 34, 40, 42;
3:1; 7:25, 26, 27; 8:2, 4; 10:18, 19; 11:15). Further, the preserved fragments contain one closed section (Dan 2:45)
and two open sections (2:49; 7:28). Some spaces after verses in this manuscript (2:24, 26; 5:16) as well as in
4QDan d (Dan 3:24; 4:5) occur before or after verbs of speaking, which may well reflect a special feature of these
Daniel manuscripts, also known for SP and some Greek documents (see below). The scribe of this manuscript may
178Thus, the phrase . . . µwy rqb yhyw br[ yhyw is part of a small verse in Gen 1:5, 8, 31, while in vv 13, 19, 23 the same phrase
constitutes a separate verse, probably in order to avoid an overly long verse together with the preceding sentence.
Similar differences between traditions are quoted in b. Qidd. 30a with an example from Exod 19:9 to be quoted below.
179For example, Gen 36:3 contains a mere six words of which two are connected with a maqqeph, and the verse has no