SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

164 Chapter 5: Writing Practices
of Deborah (Judg 5:2-30). The Talmudic formulation of this system was interpreted in the medieval manuscripts as
referring to lines ending at exactly the same point at the end of the column, with three fixed writing blocks separated
by two spaces (or two writing blocks separated by one space) in one line and two writing blocks separated by one
space (or one writing block in the middle of the line) in the following line, written in such a way that the
uninscribed and inscribed sections are always above each other. This system is not known in this exact form from
the Qumran texts, but it is not impossible that it reflects a development of system 3 in which the interaction
between inscribed and uninscribed sections is more random. It should be stressed that the rabbinic system of a ‘halfbrick
over a whole brick and a whole brick over a half-brick’ differs from the aforementioned systems, since it is
based on a graphic representation of the elements that does not reflect a certain understanding of the content. That is,
the arrangement of the ‘Song at the Sea’ and the ‘Song of Deborah’ is based on graphical principles and often runs
counter to the division into section units. A similar arrangement is visible at the ends of cols. XIV, XV, XVIII, and
most of col. XXII of Sefer Abisha> of SP (see Pérez Castro, Séfer Abis a>).
It is unclear what arrangement the Talmudic statements presuppose for the writing of the Songs and Psalms
other than those mentioned specifically (Exod 15:1-18; Deuteronomy 32). Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 123
presupposes that these two texts were singled out, because all other texts were written as two hemistichs separated
by spaces. This assumption is not supported by the Qumran evidence, but that evidence is not necessarily
representative for the manuscripts produced by rabbinic circles.
The medieval manuscripts follow the instructions in different degrees; for details on some manuscripts, see
Breuer, “Biblical Verses” (n. 188); Oesch, Petucha und Setuma, 121–4; and P. Sanders, “The Colometric Layout
of Psalms 1 to 14 in the Aleppo Codex,” Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (ed. M. C. A. Korpel and J. M.
Oesch; Pericope 3; Assen 2002) 226–57.
Because of the limited scope of the Qumran manuscripts, in only a few instances can a
judgment be pronounced on the relation between these manuscripts and rabbinic regulations.
• Deuteronomy 32 in 4QDeut q is not written according to either of the two systems mentioned in rabbinic
literature since most of its lines are written with one hemistich per line, and some lines with two hemistichs.
Interestingly enough, 4QDeut q does not align with the Masoretic family, but has close affinities to the LXX and also
has independent features.
• 4QDeut b has two hemistichs per line, as prescribed by the rabbinic rule, but they are not separated by spaces,
as stipulated there. This text is equally close to MT and SP.
• 1QDeut b and 4QpaleoDeut r , following the rabbinic rule for the writing of Deuteronomy 32 in hemistichs
separated by spaces, could be proto-Masoretic as they reflect MT and SP equally well.
• The Song at the Sea in the nonbiblical manuscript 4QRP c (4Q365) 6b (based on a pre-Samaritan biblical
text; Qumran scribal practice) is written as a running text with clusters of 2–3 words separated by spaces (illustr.
2a). To some extent, this layout may be presented as an extension of the system which is prescribed by the Talmud
(‘a half-brick over a whole brick and a whole brick over a half-brick’) since the inscribed areas are indeed located
above non-inscribed areas, even though the Qumran arrangement is not as fixed as the rabbinic prescription. The
arrangement in 4QRP c (4Q365) also resembles SP since both arrange the Song in groups of words consisting of 2–3
words, in a parallel stichographic layout in SP, and as a running text in 4QRP c .
• Against the rabbinic instructions, 4QExod c and 4QExod in Exodus 15 are written as running texts. 4QExod d
(Exod 13:15-16; 15:1) is an unusual text (possibly an abbreviated biblical text), as it lacks a major section (Exod
13:17-22 and all of ch. 14). The unusual character of this scroll may be connected to the fact that it does not reflect
the rabbinic regulations for Exodus 15. On the other hand, 4QExod c is a regular biblical text, but not particularly
close to MT, and often with independent features (J. E. Sanderson, DJD XII, 103). As in the case of 4QExod d , the
lack of close affinity with MT may be related to the failure to exhibit the features that later became rabbinic
prescriptions.
In addition to the relation between the different layout systems, also their place in the history of the
transmission of the Bible text is unclear. The writing of the Psalms as either a prose text or in stichs has not been
fixed in the manuscripts, even though there are indications of the acceptance at an earlier stage of the writing in
hemistichs. Thus the numbers given for the verses (µyqwsp) of the book of Psalms (5896) in b. Qidd. 30a can only
be understood as referring to hemistichs, since the Masoretic version of the book contains 2527 verses. See further
the discussion in § a on the division into verses.
The Samaritan writing tradition differs from both the rabbinic tradition and several Qumran texts, although
similarities are recognized in details. Although the Samaritan tradition includes the stichographic writing of some
poetical sections (see below), Samaritan scribes paid more attention to the technical aspects of the stichographic