SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 207
Tetragrammaton in P.Fouad 266b. 277 Besides, in that text the two dots are often indicated above the level of the
letters, and accordingly four dots would also have been visible in Hebrew texts. As a result, there is no evidence
indicating that the four dots or strokes were ever intended to be replaced by the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew and
Aramaic sources.
Tetrapuncta were indicated in biblical as well as nonbiblical manuscripts. Since the corrector
of 1QIsa a (as opposed to the original scribe of that manuscript) employed the Tetrapuncta twice
in supralinear corrections, he was probably accustomed to representing the divine name in this
way. Usually this corrector is identified as the scribe who also copied 1QS, 4QSam c , and 4QTest
(4Q175).
While it is difficult to determine the chronological relationship between the different modes of
representing the divine name, Stegemann, KURIOS, 157 suggested that the Tetrapuncta preceded
the writing of the divine name in square characters (see above).
Most of the texts displaying Tetrapuncta are dated to the Hasmonean era (see the summary
list in Webster, “Chronological Index”), possibly pointing to a practice employed in that period.
1QS–4QTest (4Q175)–4QSam c dated in different ways: 100–50 BCE for 1QS, 100–75 BCE for 4QSam c ,
125–75 BCE for 4QTest (4Q175)
4QTanh≥ (4Q176) hand A: 30 BCE; hand B: 30 BCE–68 CE
4Qpap paraKings et al. (4Q382): c.75 BCE
4QNarrative C (4Q462): 50–25 BCE
4QT b (4Q524): 150–125 BCE
4QpapTob a ar (4Q196): c.50 BCE
4QHistorical Text A (4Q248): 30–1 BCE
4QMen of People Who Err (4Q306): 150–50 BCE
4Qpap psEzek e (4Q391): 150–100 BCE
XH≥ev/SeEschat Hymn (XH≥ev/Se 6): 30 BCE–68 CE
(c) A dicolon ( : ), followed by a space, is systematically placed before the Tetra-grammaton
(written in the square script) in 4QRP b (4Q364), written in the Qumran practice of orthography
and morphology. E.g. 14 3 (Exod 24:17).
(d) 11QpaleoUnidentified Text (11Q22 [DJD XXIII, pl. XLVIII]) kyhlal was written with a
different color of ink (red?), implying either the use of a different pen or the involvement of a
different scribe, or both (the fragment itself could not be located, and the photograph remains our
only source). If indeed kyhlal was written with a different pen, this would be the only
recognizable instance of the special treatment of a divine name in a text completely written in
paleo-Hebrew characters.
The great majority of the texts in groups a and b are written in the Qumran orthography and
morphology, and this also applies to the great majority of occurrences of paleo-Hebrew
characters for the divine names (with the possible exception of 4QS d [4Q258]) listed in ch. 6b.
The picture that emerges from a study of the distribution of the four types of special writing
systems for the divine names is that they are closely connected to the Qumran scribal practice.
The evidence is not massive for all the texts, but it is clear-cut for the majority of them, while the
other texts are too fragmentary for analysis. For one thing, the majority of the texts using the
paleo-Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton as listed in ch. 6b are of a sectarian nonbiblical
nature. At the same time, the negative evidence must also be taken into consideration. No Hebrew
texts of a non-sectarian nature or those clearly not written in the Qumran scribal practice,
277 Thus Dunand, Papyrus grecs, Introduction, 13 and Aly–Koenen, Three Rolls, 5–6. The view of Dunand and Aly–
Koenen is acceptable on the basis of the photographs provided by the latter, with the possible exception of additional
dots in frg. 37 (Deut 24:4). See the analysis in ch. 6b2.