SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

142 Chapter 5: Writing Practices
1QIsa a XIII 28 (Isa 16:10) none 1QIsa b 3 5 open
1QIsa a XX 14 (Isa 26:2) none 4QIsa c 12–15 28 open
1QIsa a XL 1 (Isa 47:11) none 1QIsa b V 26 open/closed
1QIsa a XLV 2 (Isa 54:5) none 1QIsa b X 33 [closed]
4QJer a XIV 17 (Jer 22:5) [none] 4QJer c XI 5 open
TABLE 4: Section Units in Parallel Manuscripts of Nonbiblical Compositions
a. AGREEMENT IN THE INDICATION OF A SECTION
Passage 1 Section Passage 2 Section
1QM XVI 8 empty line 4QM a (4Q491) 11 ii 8 closed
1QS III 12 open 4QpapS a (4Q255) 2 9 open
1QS VIII 12 closed 4QS d (4Q258) 2 6 closed
1QS IX 21 closed 4QS d (4Q258) 3 ii 5 closed
4QTest (4Q175) 23 closed (small) 4QapocrJosh b (4Q379) 22 ii 9 closed 198
4QS b (4Q256) 6a i–6b 4 closed 4QS d (4Q258) VIII 5 closed
4QD a (4Q266) 2 i 6 closed 4QD c (4Q268) 1 8 closed
4QD a (4Q266) 5 i 12 closed 4QD b (4Q267) 5 ii 5 closed
11QT a (11Q19) XX 14 closed 11QT b (11Q20) 7 2 open
b. DIFFERENCE IN THE INDICATION OF A SECTION
1QS VIII 8 open 4QSd (4Q258) 2 2 none
4QSf (4Q260) 3 5 closed 1QS X 23 none
4QShirShabbf (4Q405) 3a ii b 12 empty line 4QShirShabbd (4Q403) 1 i 20–21 none
4QHa (4Q427) 6 2 none 4QpapHf (4Q432) 7 4 closed
4QHa (4Q427) 7 ii 7 closed 1QHa XXVI (Suk) 29; 4QHe none
(4Q431) 2 9
4QH a (4Q427) 7 ii 7 closed 4QH e (4Q431) 2 6 none
11QT a (11Q19) XLI 7 closed 4QT a ? (4Q365a) 2 ii 2 none
(e) Personal preference of scribes in the indication of section units
The many differences between the individual manuscripts accentuate the subjective and
impressionistic nature of the indication of section units, visible among other things within the
MT family (TABLES 3 and 4 above). Manuscripts differ with regard to the indication of divisions
and their type. Although it is unclear at which stage section divisions were added in the
manuscripts, lack of any division probably reflects the preference of the original author. The
analysis of some biblical and nonbiblical manuscripts suggests that the personal preference of
scribes may often be at work in the indication of sections.
• 1QpHab: The different spacing methods do not reflect a hierarchy of content divisions, but were determined
rather by where in the line the quotation of the biblical text ended, necessitating the insertion of a content division,
and where the following pesher began. See APPENDIX 7.1 for the data as well as an analysis of 1QpHab and the other
pesharim.
• 4QpaleoGen-Exod l : This manuscript only rarely indicated division into closed sections (in 23 5, 9, 12 and in a
few reconstructed verses), while more frequently it indicated open sections as the main division (e.g. 22 3; 30 8, 10
[for the complete data, see DJD IX, 20]). In many of these instances, the open section was followed by a completely
empty line (above, system c), also when enough space was left in the previous line to indicate the open section (e.g.
16 3–4; 19 5–6). From the content point of view, there seems to be no reason for indicating these verses with a high
degree of division, showing that this scribe probably did not follow a clear and consistent system of content
divisions.
198 Most scholars believe that 4QTest (4Q175) quoted from 4QapocrJosh b (4Q379), so that the author of the former text
probably followed the layout of the latter. However, according to H. Eshel, the dependence is reversed: “The Historical
Background of 4QTest in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries,” Zion 55 (1990) 141–50 (Heb.); idem, “The
Historical Background of the Pesher Interpreting Joshua’s Curse on the Rebuilder of Jericho,” RevQ 15 (1992) 413–19.