SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Recommendations

Info

130 Chapter 5: Writing Practices have indicated a few small section divisions, such as in 4QEn a ar (4Q201), for a smaller degree of division (also indicated in three places which do not coincide with verse endings), but the evidence is insufficient for establishing that the manuscript reflects verse division. • 4QDan d : While S. Pfann and E. Ulrich suggested that small spaces in this manuscript represent verse division, 182 the evidence (after Dan 3:24; 4:5, 12; 7:18) is insufficient and may well reflect section indications. • 4QIsa d : According to Skehan–Ulrich, DJD XV, 77, some spaces in this manuscript coincide with the ends of verses, but the evidence is inconclusive, and in other instances verse endings were not indicated in this manuscript. • 1QIsa a : Crown, “Studies. III,” 376 suggested that this manuscript indicated some verse divisions (Isa 43:23 ff. [XXXVII 17]; 45:17 [XXXVIII 24]). Furthermore, the small space before col. XXI 4 in that scroll coincides with the beginning of Isa 26:21. However, even though col. XXI seems to provide a sizeable number of instances in which ends of verses were indicated by spacing, the great majority of the ends of verses in this scroll are not indicated in this manner. Korpel–Oesch, Delimitation Criticism, 13 mention spaces between verses in Isa 50:1-11 (XLI 29–XLII 13), where indeed a larger number of spaces than usual are found between verses (after vv 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 [the end of v 10 occurs at the end of a line]), while the ends of vv 3 and 11 coincide with open sections. Two closed sections are indicated in the middle of v 2. The reason for the conglomeration of section breaks in this pericope is unclear, but since this practice pertains to a very small part of 1QIsa a , it cannot be taken as proof for the indication of verses in this scroll. • 1QIsa b : This manuscript displays a few small spaces after verses and in the middle of a verse (for the evidence, see Oesch, Petucha und Setuma, 249), but these instances do not reflect a system of verse division, since no spaces are indicated after the great majority of verses. • 1QpaleoExod and 1QpaleoLev: According to Oesch, Petucha und Setuma, 356, n. 13 these scrolls indicated some verses (‘Kleinstspatien’), but the evidence for the first scroll is incorrect, and that for the second is partly incorrect and partly pertains to section divisions. b. Targumim. 4QtgLev (4Q156), one of the two Qumran manuscripts of the Targum from cave 4 ascribed by J. T. Milik, DJD VI, 86–9 to the second-first centuries BCE, systematically indicates the ends of verses and of some half-verses (Lev 16:12, 14a, 14b, 18a, 18b, 20, 21a) with a dicolon (:). This notation is in accord with the writing tradition in that language and script. 183 The evidence for 4QtgJob (one space after Job 5:1) is unclear, while 11QtgJob has no verse divisions at all (the spaces after Job 28:26 [XIII 8] and 29:12 [XIV 7] are probably coincidental). The medieval codex Neophyti of the Targum likewise indicated dicola at the ends of verses. c. Greek translations. The earliest Greek evidence for verse division from the second century BCE onwards (texts from Qumran and Nah≥al H≥ever, Egyptian papyri) shows that verses were indicated by spacing, rendering stable the evidence for the early division into verses of this version. At a later stage, these spaces were filled in with graphic indicators in accord with the Greek writing tradition, namely the dicolon and dot (high, median, and low). 184 The evidence regarding the indication of verses in these early Greek sources (spacing, dicolon, dot), presented in detail in APPENDIX 5A, thus refers to both verses and groups of words within verses (halfverses). At the same time, several Greek manuscripts of 2 CE onwards have no verse division at all, probably reflecting a secondary development. A comparison of the verse division details in the ancient Greek biblical manuscripts and the Masoretic tradition is hampered by the fact that the transmission of the Greek biblical manuscripts, certainly in Christian copies, moved away from the original translation. The original understanding of the verse divisions cannot be reconstructed easily, but there are indications of differences in details between the Hebrew and Greek traditions. Some details in the Greek sources may reflect early traditions, or even the original translation itself, while others may have been 182 S. Pfann, “The Aramaic Text and Language of Daniel and Ezra in the Light of Some Manuscripts from Qumran,” Textus 16 (1991) 127–37, especially 136; idem, “4QDaniel d (4Q115): A Preliminary Edition with Critical Notes,” RevQ 17 (1996) 37–71, especially 49–52; E. Ulrich, DJD XVI, 239–40. 183 For parallels in the cuneiform Uruk inscription in Aramean, see C. H. Gordon, “The Aramaic Incantation in Cuneiform,” AO 12 (1938) 105–17; B. Landsberger, “Zu den aramäischen Beschwörungen in Keilschrift,” ibid., 247–57; Beyer, Ergänzungsband, 132. 184 For other uses of dots in manuscripts, see SUBJECT INDEX, ‘dot.’
Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 131 inserted secondarily, such as the indication of a pause after groups of words, especially in the middle of the verse, but also in other positions; see the third column in the TABLE in APPENDIX 5 (for the details regarding 8H≥evXIIgr, see <strong>Tov</strong>, DJD VIII, 11–12). These mid-verse divisions probably reflect pauses that were natural for a scribe or early reader. A relatively late source such as P.Oxy. 11.1352 (leather) of Psalms 82–83 LXX (early 4 CE), presenting dicola in spaces after groups of words, shows how unnatural this tradition (often against MT may have been. The spacing in P.Oxy. 4.656 of Genesis 14–27 (2 or 3 CE) separating the verbs of speaking from the direct speech in 15:7a, 9a and in P.Chester Beatty VIII of Jeremiah 4–5 (2–3 CE) before speech in Jer 4:31 are paralleled by 4QDan a mentioned above and SP to be mentioned below. See also the high dots preceding or following personal names in accordance with the Greek writing system (cf. Threatte, Attic Inscriptions, 82, 85) in P.Fouad 266a–c (942, 848, 847) of Genesis and Deuteronomy (1 BCE), P.Berlin 11766 of Exodus 5–7 (4 CE) as well as the spaces in these places in 4QpapLXXLev b (1 BCE) and 4Qpap paraExod gr (4Q127). d. Sam. Pent. In most medieval manuscripts of SP, the ends of verses were indicated with a straight (:) or oblique (:) dicolon (afsaq), while larger sense units (sections) were indicated by the qis≥s≥ah sign in combination with a completely empty line (see the analysis in § 3i). Direct speech within a verse would start with two dots level with the tops of the letters (··), e.g. Gen 3:12, 17. Although all the SP manuscripts derive from the Middle Ages, the scribal traditions recorded in them probably reflect ancient practices. 185 The SP differs often from the other textual witnesses with regard to the indication of subdivisions of verses, but these sources may nevertheless be based on a common exegetical tradition (thus Oesch, Petucha und Setuma, 313). Usually, units ending with an afsaq in SP equal verses of MT, but sometimes they are larger than the Masoretic verses. On the other hand, examples of larger verse units as recorded in Tal’s edition (see p. x above) based on MS 6 (C) of the Shekhem synagogue are Gen 2:16b-17; 3:1b-4; 8:6-7; 10:13-14; 19:12-13a. Sometimes, the divisions of verses in SP equal half-verses of MT as in Gen 1:29a, b; 3:1a, 1b; 3:5a, b. e. Masoretic accents. Various early written traditions concerning the division of the text into small units (verses) have come down to us as described above. All these texts are based probably on an ancient reading tradition that initially was oral. Such an oral reading tradition was put into writing at a later stage, and integrated into the recording of the accents of MT. Within this tradition, each unit ending with a silluq is considered a verse. 186 According to Revell, an additional, parallel, system for verse division was once operative, visible now only in the so-called pausal forms, occurring not only at the ends and in the middle of the Masoretic verses, but also in other positions. 187 When the verse division was still being developed orally, there must have been some lack of clarity in individual instances. This is alluded to by the rabbinic tradition regarding the five verses in the Torah ‘of undecided syntactical adhesion’ ([rkh ˆhl ˆyaç) concerning the type of relation between a word and that preceding or following. These doubts pertain to the divisions at the end and in the middle of these Masoretic verses. 188 f. Different verse divisions in the biblical text quoted in the pesharim? The pesharim from caves 1 and 4 at Qumran often differ from the Masoretic tradition regarding the scope of the biblical text quoted in the lemmas. Thus, while the lemmas quoting the biblical text in the exposition in 1QpHab sometimes conform to what is now a verse in the Masoretic tradition of Habakkuk (1:5, 11, 12, 17; 2:14, 15, 16, 18), more frequently they comprise half-verses or even smaller segments (1:3a, 3b, 4ba, 1:4bb, 6a, 6b, 10a, 10b, 1:13aa, 13b; 2:3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 8b, 17a, 17b), oneand-a-half verses (1:1-2a; 1:6bb-7; 1:12b-13a; 2:7-8a), or stretches of two (2:1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 19-20), or three (1:14- 16; 2:9-11) verses. Similar deviations from the scope of the verses of MT are reflected in the lemmas of 1QpMic (1Q14), 4Qpap pIsa c (4Q163), 4QpIsa d (4Q164), and 4QpNah (4Q169), and to a lesser degree 4QpHos a (4Q166) and 185 Thus Anderson, Studies; Crown, “Studies. III”; E. J. Revell, “Biblical Punctuation and Chant in the Second Temple Period,” JSJ 7 (1976) 181–98; Robertson, Catalogue, xxi–xxii, xxv–xxvi, 3. See also Crown, Samaritan Scribes, 80. 186 These verses were not numbered until a system of chapter division was introduced in the copies of the Vulgate in the thirteenth century by Archbishop Stephen Langton (d. 1228). From the Vulgate, that numbering system was introduced into editions of the Hebrew Bible as well as in manuscripts and editions of the other ancient versions. For the differences between the Hebrew editions, see J. S. Penkower, “Verse Divisions in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 50 (2000) 379–93. 187 E. J. Revell, “Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew: Their Function, Origin and Significance,” JSS 25 (1980) 165–79. 188 See the discussion in S. Kogut, Correlations between Biblical Accentuation and Traditional Jewish Exegesis: Linguistic and Contextual Studies (Jerusalem 1994) 33–8 (Heb.); T. Jansma, “Vijf teksten in de Tora met een dubieuze constructie,” NTT 12 (1957–58) 161–79; M. Breuer, “Biblical Verses of Undecided Syntactical Adhesion,” Leshonenu 58 (1994–5) 189–99 (Heb.).
Page 1:
SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S R
Page 5 and 6:
DEDICATED TO THE SCRIBES WHO WROTE
Page 7 and 8:
Contents vii CONTENTS Text Editions
Page 9:
Contents ix Chapter 8: Scribal Trad
Page 12 and 13:
xii Text Editions Sam. Pent (SP) A.
Page 14 and 15:
xiv Periodicals, Reference Works, a
Page 16 and 17:
REFERENCES AND SUNDRY ABBREVIATIONS
Page 18 and 19:
xviii List of Tables 21. Scrolls wi
Page 20 and 21:
xx Preface This book contains thous
Page 23 and 24:
1 INTRODUCTION a. Purpose and natur
Page 25 and 26:
Scribal Practices and Approaches Re
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Copyists, scribes, and soferim 2 SC
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
3 WRITING AND WRITING MATERIALS The
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
4 TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF SCROLL WRITI
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102: Scribal Practices and Approaches Re
Page 133 and 134: (4) No indication Scribal Practices
Page 145 and 146: 5 WRITING PRACTICES The writing pra
Page 151: Scribal Practices and Approaches Re
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
6 SCRIPTS 293 a. Square (Jewish) sc
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
7 SPECIAL SCRIBAL CHARACTERISTICS O
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267:
Page 270 and 271:
248 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions s
Page 272 and 273:
250 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions s
Page 274 and 275:
252 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions L
Page 276 and 277:
254 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions T
Page 278 and 279:
256 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions T
Page 280 and 281:
258 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions h
Page 282 and 283:
260 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions r
Page 284 and 285:
262 Chapter 8: Scribal Traditions
Page 286 and 287:
264 Appendix 1 3. Scribal markings
Page 288 and 289:
266 Appendix 1 4QJer d gd — n b 1
Page 290 and 291:
268 Appendix 1 4Q256 4QSb y y 3 20
Page 292 and 293:
270 Appendix 1 4Q496 4QpapMf y y y
Page 294 and 295:
272 Appendix 1 Doc/Mish B 4Q322 4QM
Page 297 and 298:
APPENDIX 2 PAPYRUS TEXTS FROM THE J
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
APPENDIX 3 OPISTHOGRAPHS FROM THE J
Page 305 and 306:
APPENDIX 4 THE GREEK TEXTS FROM THE
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
APPENDIX 5 SCRIBAL FEATURES OF EARL
Page 311 and 312:
CE) P.Oxy. 65.4443 of Esther E and
Page 313 and 314:
P.Antinoopolis 8 of Proverbs 5-20 (
Page 315 and 316:
P.Rylands 1 of Deut 23 (4 CE) P.Oxy
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
APPENDIX 6 THE HEBREW TEXTS FROM MA
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325:
show all

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?