SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

140 Chapter 5: Writing Practices
(g) Background and meaning of the section units in Hebrew manuscripts
All systems of dividing the text are necessarily subjective and impressionistic (§ q), and even
more so is the hierarchical relation between such units often indicated by the employment of
either open or closed sections. That is, a unit that was denoted as an open section by one scribe
could be denoted as a closed one by the scribe of another manuscript of the same composition.
This situation explains the many differences between parallel manuscripts, both in the Qumran
corpus and within the medieval Masoretic family. In the course of that comparison, one realizes
that the Qumran manuscripts were usually subdivided into more clearly demarcated units than
the Masoretic manuscripts. They often have open sections where the Masoretic manuscripts
have closed ones, and section divisions were often inserted where the Masoretic manuscripts
have none. For a comparison between parallel sources, see § d below.
The subjective nature of the division into either open or closed sections is also mentioned in
rabbinic literature with regard to the writing of mezuzot. See ch. 7c.
The contextual relevance of the spacing comes to light especially in the pesharim in which the
scribes usually marked a separation between the lemma (the biblical text) and the pesher, before
the pesher, after the pesher, or in both places. For a detailed presentation and parallels with
scribal practices in Greek manuscripts, see ch. 5a2, 7f.
A similar contextual importance is attached to the spacing in 4QWisdom Text with Beatitudes
(4Q525) 2–3 ii, where each yrça saying ended with a space in the middle of the line.
When the archetype of the Masoretic Text became sanctified, all the constituent elements,
such as the notation of section units, became part of the transmitted text. Thus the system of
indicating a specific type of section was considered obligatory by b. Shabb. 103b:
hjwtp hnç[y al hmwts .hmwts hnç[y al hjwtp hçrp
An open section may not be written closed, nor a closed section open.
Likewise Sof. 1.15:
zngy hz yrh .hjwtp haç[ç hmwts .hmwts haç[ç hjwtp
If an open section was written as closed or a closed section as open, the scroll must be stored away
(see further Sifre Deuteronomy § 36.1 on Deut 6:9).
The fact that scrolls were considered unfit for use if the indication of the sections was imprecise
may have been unrealistic, even in Second Temple times, since all known texts, such as those of
the proto-Masoretic family, differ internally. Therefore, the quoted traditions give the impression
of reflecting a comparison of manuscripts with a master scroll, whose divisions were considered
authoritative.
(d) Differences in section divisions between parallel manuscripts of the same composition
As a rule, scribes copied the divisions between section units from their Vorlagen, but they
sometimes deviated from them, and it is difficult to determine under which conditions they did
so. Some discrepancies were caused by differences in column dimensions between the scribe’s
Vorlage and the manuscript he created, as a result of which scribes often were not able to recreate
the division which they found before them. Beyond this description, scribes must have felt free
to change the section divisions of their Vorlage and to add new ones in accord with their
understanding of the context. They must have made their decisions ad hoc, guided mainly by
their general understanding of the content.
Because of this situation, there are many differences between parallel manuscripts of the same
composition with regard to section units, both in antiquity and in the Middle Ages. So far, most