SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

146 Chapter 5: Writing Practices
dynasty onwards, a raised dot (often in red ink) indicated the end of a section (Janzen, Hiërogliefen, 45; C7erny,
Paper, 25; A. F. Robertson, Word Dividers). In other Egyptian texts, vertical lines were used (Ashton, Scribal
Habits, 113–14).
Many of the Aramaic texts from the fifth century BCE recorded in Porten–Yardeni, TAD, such as the Elephantine
papyri, displayed open and closed sections (for open sections, see, e.g. Ahiqar, lines 80, 86, 103, 106; for closed
sections, see, e.g. lines 88, 90, 105). Several of these papyri also used the same horizontal paragraphos signs (§ 5c2
below) as found in the later documents from the Judean Desert (Porten–Yardeni, TAD 2, e.g. B3.3, 3.6, 8.3, 8.4,
8.7). Similar to the scribal tradition of several texts from the Judean Desert (cf. § 5c2), some early Aramaic texts also
contained scribal signs written in ‘closed sections’ indicating new sections (also once in the Ahiqar text in an open
section [below, ch. 5c], and once in the middle of a blank line in court record B8.5 of 431 BCE in Porten–Yardeni,
TAD 2; see figs. 3a–b). Greek texts from all periods also display open and closed sections. For secular texts, see
Schubart, Griechische Palaeographie, 173; Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 8 and index.
On the other hand, in the case of the New Testament, it was suggested by Gächter, “Zur Textabteilung,”
especially 319–20, that the earliest manuscripts contained no text divisions at all since P.45 and P.46 (in the
Chester Beatty collection) lacked such divisions.
In the wake of these parallels, it stands to reason that the earliest Scripture scrolls already
indicated section division, as suggested by Oesch, Petucha und Setuma (especially pp. 343, 364)
and before him by H. Hupfeld, Ausführliche Hebräische Grammatik (Cassel 1841) and idem,
“Beleuchtung dunkler Stellen der alttestamentlichen Textgeschichte,” TSK 10 (1837) 830–61.
Likewise, Langlamet, “Samuel” (especially p. 518) believes that these divisions were found
already in the manuscripts of Samuel used by the final editors. According to him, these divisions
were adopted by the final editors, who integrated them in the version created by them. If this
opinion is correct, the original sense division reflected the views of the biblical authors (editors),
while subsequently variations in sense division were created during the textual transmission.
(q) The rationale of the division into sections
The indication of a section division is very subjective, whether inserted by the first transcriber or
subsequent copyists of the text. If the original authors or scribes embedded a hierarchical
subdivision in the text, that division necessarily reflected their exegesis, and this understanding
was often changed by later scribes, sometimes in a minor way, and sometimes in a major way.
Leaving aside the question of who first inserted the large sense divisions (the original
authors/transcribers or subsequent scribes), it is important to know when and why such divisions
were indicated in the text. Since these divisions are subjective, there are no a priori rules for them.
The logic of the section divisions in one source (1QIsa a ) was studied in detail by Steck,
Jesajarolle; idem, “Abschnittgliederung”; idem, “Bemer-kungen”; idem, “Sachliche Akzenten”;
Olley, “Structure,” and previously Bardke, “Die Parascheneinteilung.” Likewise, the MT of the
Torah was examined by Perrot and Langlamet (see below). According to Steck, the system of
section divisions and paragraphoi in 1QIsa a is internally consistent (e.g. “Abschnittgliederung,”
53; “Sachliche Akzenten,” 150), a conclusion which is highly debatable. Both Steck and Olley list
the phrases occurring at the beginnings of new sections, such as hwhy rma h(w)k appearing after a
closed or open section (e.g. VI 21 [Isa 7:7]). However, not all such phrases start new sections, and
conversely not all new prophecies or units start with an easily recognizable phrase. One therefore
wonders about the validity of such a listing. It would seem preferable to argue in general terms
that content analysis made the scribe realize that a new section (prophecy) started at a particular
point, and that certain phrases may have aided him in reaching his decision. The divisions also
could have been fixed by scribes without paying attention to any phrases. Besides, if the content
divisions were already inserted in the very first manuscript of Isaiah—a possibility mentioned
above—no listing of criteria is necessary at all, since the author or editor knew where to denote
his sense divisions. Against the lists of criteria, it should also be argued that since the sections in