SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 135
Section units are indicated anywhere in the column, including the first and last lines, although
naturally there would be a reticence to start a major section on the last line of the column (cf. the
modern avoidance of ‘widow’ lines). At least one instance is known, 8H≥evXIIgr, where contents
of the last line in col. XVIII (line 42) were erased and rewritten in the following column in order
that the first verse of the new section (Hab 3:1) would appear at the top of a new column (which
has not been preserved).
It is not easy to reduce the manifold scribal practices to a small number of systems pertaining
to all the texts, since each scribe was to some extent individualistic in denoting sense units;
nevertheless two major systems can be discerned in the Judean Desert texts. In these texts, the
content is divided into small and larger units (illustrations 1, 3, 8, 15
15, and 21
21). A certain
hierarchical relation between these two systems may often be assumed; that is, according to the
modern way of thinking we would probably say that larger sense units are often subdivided into
smaller units. It is, however, unclear whether this hierarchical relation should always be assumed,
and in some cases it can be demonstrated that such a relation did not exist when the two systems
of sense division were of equal value, distinguished merely by their place on the line (1QpHab;
see below). The idea of consistently subdividing a larger unit into smaller ones may well be a
western concept, even though such subdivision can often be demonstrated. 193 It is probably safer
to assume that scribes often directed their attention to the type of relation between the unit they
had just copied and that they were about to copy, without forming an opinion on the adjacent
units. It also stands to reason to assume, with Jenner, that the closed section often referred back
to a previous unit of a larger order, namely an open section, while the marking of an open section
itself often introduces a completely new theme, and hence refers to what will follow. 194
To a great extent, the division into section units by scribes was impressionistic, as we shall
see below. After all, in order to ascertain the exact relation between the various section units, a
scribe would have to carry out a close reading of the context and be involved in literary analysis
of several adjacent section units. Since we do not believe that scribes were so actively involved in
content analysis, it appears that scribal decisions on the type of relation between section units
should often, but definitely not always, be considered ad hoc, made upon completion of one unit
and before embarking on the next. To some extent, this explains the differences between
manuscripts of the same composition, as scribes often took a different approach to the relation
between two units.
No rule exists regarding the length of a section that is separated from the context by preceding
and following section units. This parameter depends on the nature of the literary composition
and on the understanding of the scribe. The two extremes can be seen: there are manuscripts with
virtually no section divisions, such as several units in medieval manuscripts of MT undoubtedly
continuing earlier traditions. The book of Ruth in MT contains only one section division, after
4:17. Other divisions are called for, but they were simply not included in this text. There are also
other books in MT containing very few section divisions; for a discussion, see § e. At the other
extreme are small sections separated from the context as illustrated in TABLE 2.
TABLE 2: Small Section Units in the Qumran Texts
Reference Description
1QIsa a XXI (Isa 26:19–28:2) A sequence of successive small section units (open and closed
193 Therefore, the criticisms against invoking western thinking are not always relevant. For such criticisms in Korpel–
Oesch, Delimitation Criticism, see M. C. A. Korpel (p. 10) and J. M. Oesch (p. 207).
194 K. D. Jenner, “Petucha and Setuma: Tools for Interpretation or Simply a Matter of Layout?” in Studies in Isaiah 24–27:
The Isaiah Workshop, De Jesaja Werkplaats (ed. H. J. Bosman; OTS 43; Leiden 2000) 81–117, especially 87–8.