SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 175
and in such cases sometimes a single waw was left in the middle of the space at the end of the
line, even when there was room for the whole word (ostraca 2 3, 4; 3 6; 11 4).
It is unclear what the relation is between the paleo-Hebrew al–Naveh, Aramaic Ostraca). The scribal traditions of some Qumran texts apparently reflect both
traditions. The paleo-Hebrew waw written in these texts within the text block probably continues the tradition
reflected in the Arad ostraca, while its occurrence in the margin reflects a tradition similar to that of the Aramaic
documents.
(f) 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521) 2 ii 4: This scroll contains a sign in the margin adjacent
to a new section (fig. 5.6). 5.6 For some speculations on the meaning of the sign, see É. Puech, “Une
Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521),” RevQ 60 (1992) 475–519 (482) and idem, DJD XXV, 7.
(g) The sign resembling an epsilon in the top right margin above the beginning of the column
in MasSir V (fig. 15) 15 could represent a numbering device (ch. 5c8), but it is more likely that it
marks a (major?) sense division, indicated also by the superscription in the left margin (ch. 5b),
and paralleled by an empty line in the medieval MS B of Ben Sira. The slant of the sign very much
resembles that of an ancora (inferior) mark (denoting omission or addition) in the Greek scribal
tradition (fig. 15.1), 15.1 although the latter has a longer middle stroke. Cf. also the epsilon-like sign in
4QCantb 1 9 (fig. 12.3 and illustr. 8a). Mur 17B (papList of Personal Names) contains a very
similar sign which has been explained by its editor (J. T. Milik, DJD II, 97) as denoting the
measure seah occurring in that text together with number signs. Threatte, Attic Inscriptions, 92
explains a similar sign in one of the inscriptions as a variation of the sigma formed by breaking
the semicircle in the middle.
(h) 4Qpap pIsa c (4Q163) 4–7 ii 9–11, 16, 18, 20: In the transcription of these lines, J. Allegro,
DJD V, 18–19 recorded various shapes in the margin which cannot be identified on the plates.
Some of these shapes introduce the beginning of a new biblical text in this pesher.
(i) 1QM X 9: The scribe indicated a closed section, but upon realizing that there should be no
such section he (or a later scribe) canceled it with a thin stroke level with the bottom of the
letters.
Several additional signs (§§ 3 and 4 below) likewise occur at the beginning of new sections;
however, they probably do not indicate the beginning of a new section, but rather draw attention
to a feature connected to the content of that section.
(2) Marks pertaining to scribal intervention, mainly for the correction of errors
When a scribe or user corrected or altered the text that he or a previous scribe had written,
various systems of denoting these changes were used either in the linear text or in the interlinear
space. For a helpful initial analysis on the basis of the texts from cave 1, see Martin, Scribal
Character, I.144–71, 405. Some data were collected by Kutscher, Language, 531–6. Several
different systems were employed for deleting letters and words, and most scribes and/or users
used these systems interchangeably, although some preferred a specific practice.
The four main systems used for correction are:
i. cancellation dots/strokes
ii. crossing out with a line
iii. parenthesis signs (antisigma and sigma)
iv. erasures