SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

152 Chapter 5: Writing Practices
At a later stage, probably under the influence of Greek tradition, a single dot (pasoqah) was also employed.
According to Brock, “Text History,” 67 there is a certain degree of agreement in detail between the ancient
traditions (MT, 1QIsa a , and S), but that agreement should not be over-emphasized in view of the differences between
these sources. The relations between the three sources are tabulated in Korpel–de Moor, Structure, 649–55 for Isaiah
40–55. A more recent study by Jenner illustrates the different paragraphing markers used in Syriac manuscripts and
describes the systems used in greater detail than earlier studies. 205 During the course of the transmission of S, the
manuscripts drifted away in different directions, and the transmission of the section divisions became imprecise (de
Moor, “Unit Division” [n. 204] 246–7). Because of the late date of the witnesses of S, this source is not examined
in detail for the present monograph.
11QtgJob has several open sections, e.g. after Job 40:5 (XXXIV 1), before 42:1 (XXXVII 2), but no closed
sections at all. It also has completely empty lines (e.g. III 2 before 20:1; X 7 before 27:1).
The system of SP differs again from the practices mentioned above, but the exact nature of the evidence of that
version still needs to be examined on the basis of manuscripts and it is unclear which manuscript(s) better reflect(s)
the earliest text forms. As with the systems used in the manuscripts of the ancient translations, the SP practice
ultimately derived from that used in the Hebrew manuscripts described above. 206 The external form of the system
used for sense division resembles system c of the Hebrew manuscripts, but the pause is equivalent with both the
open and closed sections of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. In SP, this sense division takes the form of a
completely empty line following a line ending with a graphic sign, a dicolon ( : ) in Sefer Abisa> and more
elaborate forms in other manuscripts, such as —: , — . : . and —: . . This sign always occurs at the end of the
inscribed text, even if the text is very short, in which case the words are evenly spread out over the line in order to
create a straight left margin.
While most Samaritan manuscripts did not distinguish between open and closed sections, some did. Thus, the
fragment described by A. D. Crown, “An Unpublished Fragment of a Samaritan Torah Scroll,” BJRL 64 (1982)
386–406 (especially 401) distinguished between a qis≥s≥ah representing an open section (leaving a completely
empty line after the sign) and a qis≥s≥ah representing a closed section (leaving a half-line after the sign).
With regard to details, there are noticeable differences between SP on the one hand and the proto-Masoretic and
medieval Masoretic manuscripts, as well as the non-Masoretic Qumran manuscripts on the other. SP has 20–25
percent more sense divisions than the medieval Masoretic manuscripts according to the statistics of Perrot, “Petuhot
et setumot,” 76–8, while in some individual books the differences are more pervasive (according to Oesch, Petucha
und Setuma, 313, SP has 20–33 percent more sense divisions). For further details, see J. Bowman, “Samaritan
Studies,” BJRL 40 (1958) 298–327, especially 318–27. Because of the late date of the SP witnesses, this source also
is not studied in detail for the present monograph although its proximity to the paragraph system of certain Qumran
manuscripts (especially 4QpaleoGen-Exod l ) has been noticed by Crown, “Samaritan Scribal Habits,” 165–6.
(k) A common tradition of the sense divisions of the biblical manuscripts?
The systems used for the division of the text into meaningful section units are similar in all ancient
and medieval witnesses of Scripture, in Hebrew/Aramaic and in translation. There is also a large
degree of agreement in matters of detail. At the same time, there are many differences among the
Hebrew manuscripts, as described above, and also between these manuscripts and the versional
evidence. Since the translations were made from Hebrew manuscripts, the assumption of some
form of common tradition is possible, but that common tradition would have to be defined with
constant reference to the internal differences between the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. The fact
1988) 65–78; K. D. Jenner, “A Review of the Methods by Which Syriac Biblical and Related Manuscripts Have Been
Described and Analysed: Some Preliminary Remarks,” Aram 5 (1993) 255–66; Korpel–de Moor, Structure, 6–9; J. C.
de Moor, “Unit Division in the Peshitta of Micah,” Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999) 225–47.
205 K. D. Jenner, “The Unit Delimitation in the Syriac Text of Daniel and its Consequences for the Interpretation,” in
Korpel–Oesch, Delimitation Criticism, 105–29.
206 M. Gaster, “The Biblical Lessons: A Chapter on Biblical Archaeology,” Studies and Texts I (London 1925–28;
reprint: New York 1973) 503–600, especially 515–24, first drew attention to the similarity between the Masoretic and
Samaritan traditions. The detailed study by Crown, “Samaritan Scribal Habits” likewise suggests that the system of SP
‘arises from the same scribal traditions as produced the MT.
207 Indirect evidence for the joining of books is further available for Mur 1, probably containing Genesis, Exodus, and
Numbers (see DJD III, 75–8 and pls. XIX–XXI), 4QExod-Lev f , and 4QLev-Num a . However, in none of these texts has
the actual join between the books been preserved.