SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 147
1QIsa a differ from those in the other manuscripts, among them the Medieval Masoretic texts,
each source may have followed different principles.
The assumption of Perrot, “Petuhot et setumot,” 84–9 that there is a connection between the
sense divisions and the liturgical readings in the Torah may be correct, since such readings would
logically start with new sections, but this connection was probably made after the divisions
already existed. Both Bardke, “Die Paraschenein-teilung” and Perrot, “Petuhot et setumot”
examined the section divisions in 1QIsa a with special attention to the theological exegesis of the
Qumranites and their interest in certain topics, but this approach is very questionable.
Furthermore, in other biblical books that are likewise written with section markings no such
theological tendencies can be detected.
Since these types of interpretation may be less relevant, different explanations come to mind
for section divisions in individual units. It appears that we are often faced with practices, not
systems, of individual scribes, and that there is no overall explanation for the whole corpus or for
Hebrew Scripture. The original authors and/or scribes made their contextual decisions while
writing or copying and not as part of an overall scheme. Undoubtedly some divisions can be
explained in different ways, and often another type of division may be proposed which appears
to be more appealing to our understanding (hence the frequent differences between codex L and
BHS on which also below, TABLE 7). Among other things, it should be noted that the notion of
‘original sense divisions,’ which some scholars try to establish, is as difficult as that of
establishing the original text of Hebrew Scripture. We should therefore content ourselves with a
few observations on the rationale of some of the section divisions.
1. Schematically written descriptions and lists were usually separated by open sections, e.g.
the segments in the census in Numbers 1–4 in MT and 4QLev-Num a . However, there are
differences in details.
4QGen b,g as well as the medieval Masoretic texts of Genesis 1 end the description of each
day of the creation with an open section. Usually there are no subdivisions within the narration
of what was created on each day, but in 4QGen g there is a closed section after v 10, between the
creation of the dry land (1:9-10) and of the vegetation (1:11-12).
Likewise, the different offerings in Leviticus are separated by open or closed sections; in the
medieval manuscripts of MT they are indicated by alternating closed and open sections, and in
the Qumran texts mainly by open sections, but TABLE 6 shows that the evidence is more
complicated. Thus 4QLev b (Lev 1:11–3:1; 3:8-14) contains only open sections. One wonders to
what extent the alternation of open and closed sections in the medieval texts of MT is intentional.
A new unit starts in Lev 1:14 with burnt offerings of birds, and when in 2:1 the text continues
with a meal offering, it would be logical that this verse would start after an open section, but
unlike in 4QLev b , this is not the case in MT. This verse is separated from the previous one with
a closed section, as, in fact, are all other instances of meal offerings in this chapter (after vv 4, 5,
7, 14). On the other hand, these laws are separated by open sections in the Qumran scroll (vv 4,
14), but not in vv 5, 7. In the medieval texts, there are thus more instances of division than in
4QLev b . Further, MT has closed sections where 4QLev b has open sections.
TABLE 6: Section Units in Lev 1:14–2:12
Before Verse Topic of New Section Section in MT Section in 4QLev b
1:14 burnt offerings of birds open open
2:1 meal offering closed open
2:4 cereal offering closed open
2:5 cereal offering (baked) closed none